JUST vs QLV
Goldman Sachs JUST US Large Cap Equity ETF vs Northern Trust US Quality Low Volatility ETF
Which is better, JUST or QLV?
JUST has been ahead.
QLV has a lower expense ratio. JUST led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. QLV is less concentrated, with 36.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.9%.
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 | JUST | QLV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.20% | 0.08%Best |
| AUM | $572M | $171M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.94% | 1.50% |
| Holdings | 461 | 125 |
| YTD Return | +14.35%Best | +13.30% |
| 1Y Return | +18.75%Best | +14.01% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.22%Best | +16.91% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +12.57%Best | +10.85% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.4% | 13.6%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -33.8%Best | -34.0% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $18,076Best | $16,737 |
| Top 10 Weight | 41.9% | 36.8%Best |
| Fund Family | Goldman Sachs Asset Management | Northern Trust Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jun 7, 2018 | 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).
JUST 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.
JUST vs QLV Performance
Goldman Sachs JUST US Large Cap Equity ETF (JUST) is an ETF from Goldman Sachs Asset Management and Northern Trust US Quality Low Volatility ETF (QLV) is an ETF from Northern Trust Asset Management. Over the past year JUST returned +18.75% while QLV returned +14.01%. Year to date, JUST is up 14.35% versus a gain of 13.30% for QLV.
Over three years, JUST compounded at +22.22% per year against +16.91% for QLV; over five years the annualized figures are +12.57% and +10.85% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, JUST has the edge at +14.82% annualized vs +11.51%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
JUST 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 -33.8% for JUST 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 0.91. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
JUST charges 0.20% per year while QLV charges 0.08%. On a $10,000 position that is $20 vs $8 annually, a gap of $12 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, JUST currently yields 0.94% against 1.50% for QLV.
Holdings Overlap
58.7% of JUST's money is in holdings QLV also owns. 70.7% of QLV's money is in holdings JUST also owns.
Most of QLV is already inside JUST. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
63 positions in common, counted across the 462 positions we hold weights for in JUST and 120 in QLV, against full books of 461 and 125.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 50 positions for QLV that do not appear in our book for JUST (26.0% of the fund), and 387 for JUST that do not appear in QLV (40.7%).
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 JUST | Weight in QLV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 8.84% | 6.86% | 1.98% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.84% | 6.09% | 1.75% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 6.25% | 6.58% | 0.33% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 4.86% | 2.46% | 2.40% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 1.02% | 4.25% | 3.23% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc-cl A | 3.24% | 1.94% | 1.30% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.62% | 1.81% | 0.81% |
| GOOGAlphabet, Inc.- Cl C | 2.61% | 1.47% | 1.14% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 1.43% | 2.38% | 0.95% |
| VVisa Inc. 'A' | 1.14% | 2.15% | 1.01% |
70.7% of QLV is already inside JUST.
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, JUST or QLV?
JUST has an expense ratio of 0.20% while QLV charges 0.08%. QLV is the cheaper option, by $12 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, JUST or QLV?
Over the past year JUST returned +18.75% vs +14.01% for QLV, so JUST leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), JUST annualized +14.82% vs +11.51% for QLV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, JUST or QLV?
JUST has been the more volatile fund at 16.4% annualized versus 13.6% for QLV. Worst drawdown: JUST -33.8% vs QLV -34.0%.
Should I hold both JUST and QLV?
JUST and QLV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.91, 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 JUST and QLV?
70.7% of QLV's money is in holdings JUST also owns. 70.7% of QLV's is in holdings JUST also owns. They hold 63 positions in common, counted across the 462 positions we hold weights for in JUST and 120 in QLV.
Which pays a higher dividend, JUST or QLV?
JUST yields 0.94% while QLV yields 1.50%, so QLV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QLV better than JUST?
QLV has a lower expense ratio. JUST led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.91. QLV is less concentrated, with 36.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.