JHML vs QLV
John Hancock Multifactor Large Cap ETF vs Northern Trust US Quality Low Volatility ETF
Which is better, JHML or QLV?
JHML has been ahead.
QLV has a lower expense ratio. JHML led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. JHML is less concentrated, with 25.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 36.8%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | JHML | QLV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.29% | 0.08%Best |
| AUM | $1.2B | $171M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.96% | 1.50% |
| Holdings | 780 | 125 |
| YTD Return | +12.96% | +13.30%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.02%Best | +14.01% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.26%Best | +16.91% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.29%Best | +10.85% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.4% | 13.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -36.1% | -34.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,072Best | $16,737 |
| Top 10 Weight | 25.2%Best | 36.8% |
| Fund Family | John Hancock Investment Management | Northern Trust Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 28, 2015 | Jul 15, 2019 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 16, 2019 to Oct 14, 2026 (7.2 years).
JHML vs QLV growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 7.2 years both funds cover.
JHML vs QLV Performance
John Hancock Multifactor Large Cap ETF (JHML) is an ETF from John Hancock Investment Management and Northern Trust US Quality Low Volatility ETF (QLV) is an ETF from Northern Trust Asset Management. Over the past year JHML returned +17.02% while QLV returned +14.01%. Year to date, JHML is up 12.96% versus a gain of 13.30% for QLV.
Over three years, JHML compounded at +20.26% per year against +16.91% for QLV; over five years the annualized figures are +11.29% and +10.85% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, JHML has the edge at +13.48% annualized vs +11.51%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
JHML has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.4% compared with 13.6% for QLV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -36.1% for JHML and -34.0% for QLV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.92. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
JHML charges 0.29% per year while QLV charges 0.08%. On a $10,000 position that is $29 vs $8 annually, a gap of $21 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, JHML currently yields 0.96% against 1.50% for QLV.
Holdings Overlap
42.0% of JHML's money is in holdings QLV also owns. 84.1% of QLV's money is in holdings JHML also owns.
Most of QLV is already inside JHML. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
92 positions in common, counted across the 773 positions we hold weights for in JHML and 120 in QLV, against full books of 780 and 125.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 21 positions for QLV that do not appear in our book for JHML (12.6% of the fund), and 650 for JHML that do not appear in QLV (57.1%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in JHML | Weight in QLV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 4.22% | 6.86% | 2.64% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.29% | 6.09% | 1.80% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 3.67% | 6.58% | 2.91% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 2.98% | 2.46% | 0.52% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 0.77% | 4.25% | 3.48% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc-cl A | 2.57% | 1.94% | 0.63% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.70% | 1.81% | 0.11% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 0.75% | 2.38% | 1.63% |
| METAMeta Platform Inc | 2.03% | 1.04% | 0.99% |
| VVisa Inc. 'A' | 0.66% | 2.15% | 1.49% |
84.1% of QLV is already inside JHML.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, JHML or QLV?
JHML has an expense ratio of 0.29% while QLV charges 0.08%. QLV is the cheaper option, by $21 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, JHML or QLV?
Over the past year JHML returned +17.02% vs +14.01% for QLV, so JHML leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), JHML annualized +13.48% vs +11.51% for QLV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, JHML or QLV?
JHML has been the more volatile fund at 16.4% annualized versus 13.6% for QLV. Worst drawdown: JHML -36.1% vs QLV -34.0%.
Should I hold both JHML and QLV?
JHML and QLV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.92, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between JHML and QLV?
84.1% of QLV's money is in holdings JHML also owns. 84.1% of QLV's is in holdings JHML also owns. They hold 92 positions in common, counted across the 773 positions we hold weights for in JHML and 120 in QLV.
Which pays a higher dividend, JHML or QLV?
JHML yields 0.96% while QLV yields 1.50%, so QLV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QLV better than JHML?
QLV has a lower expense ratio. JHML led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.92. JHML is less concentrated, with 25.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 36.8%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.