LCTU vs QLV
iShares US Carbon Transition Readiness Aware Active ETF vs Northern Trust US Quality Low Volatility ETF
Which is better, LCTU or QLV?
LCTU has been ahead.
QLV has a lower expense ratio. LCTU led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. LCTU is less concentrated, with 35.5% 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 | LCTU | QLV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15% | 0.08%Best |
| AUM | $1.2B | $171M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.97% | 1.50% |
| Holdings | 334 | 125 |
| YTD Return | +11.76% | +13.30%Best |
| 1Y Return | +15.34%Best | +14.01% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.21%Best | +16.91% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.70%Best | +10.85% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.5% | 11.9%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -25.9% | -17.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,389Best | $16,737 |
| Top 10 Weight | 35.5%Best | 36.8% |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Northern Trust Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 6, 2021 | Jul 15, 2019 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Apr 8, 2021 to Oct 14, 2026 (5.5 years).
LCTU 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 5.5 years both funds cover.
LCTU vs QLV Performance
iShares US Carbon Transition Readiness Aware Active ETF (LCTU) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Northern Trust US Quality Low Volatility ETF (QLV) is an ETF from Northern Trust Asset Management. Over the past year LCTU returned +15.34% while QLV returned +14.01%. Year to date, LCTU is up 11.76% versus a gain of 13.30% for QLV.
Over three years, LCTU compounded at +21.21% per year against +16.91% for QLV; over five years the annualized figures are +11.70% and +10.85% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, LCTU has the edge at +12.46% annualized vs +11.54%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LCTU has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.5% compared with 11.9% 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 -25.9% for LCTU and -17.9% 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 0.89. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
LCTU charges 0.15% per year while QLV charges 0.08%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $8 annually, a gap of $7 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, LCTU currently yields 0.97% against 1.50% for QLV.
Holdings Overlap
50.8% of LCTU's money is in holdings QLV also owns. 61.6% of QLV's money is in holdings LCTU also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
49 positions in common, counted across the 331 positions we hold weights for in LCTU and 120 in QLV, against full books of 334 and 125.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 65 positions for QLV that do not appear in our book for LCTU (35.1% of the fund), and 262 for LCTU that do not appear in QLV (48.1%).
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 LCTU | Weight in QLV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 8.16% | 6.86% | 1.30% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.17% | 6.09% | 1.08% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 4.94% | 6.58% | 1.64% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.08% | 2.46% | 0.62% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 0.63% | 4.25% | 3.62% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc-cl A | 2.49% | 1.94% | 0.55% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.04% | 1.81% | 0.23% |
| METAMeta Platform Inc | 2.43% | 1.04% | 1.39% |
| GOOGAlphabet, Inc.- Cl C | 1.91% | 1.47% | 0.44% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 0.62% | 2.38% | 1.76% |
61.6% of QLV is already inside LCTU.
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, LCTU or QLV?
LCTU has an expense ratio of 0.15% while QLV charges 0.08%. QLV is the cheaper option, by $7 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, LCTU or QLV?
Over the past year LCTU returned +15.34% vs +14.01% for QLV, so LCTU leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), LCTU annualized +12.46% vs +11.54% for QLV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, LCTU or QLV?
LCTU has been the more volatile fund at 15.5% annualized versus 11.9% for QLV. Worst drawdown: LCTU -25.9% vs QLV -17.9%.
Should I hold both LCTU and QLV?
LCTU and QLV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.89, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between LCTU and QLV?
61.6% of QLV's money is in holdings LCTU also owns. 61.6% of QLV's is in holdings LCTU also owns. They hold 49 positions in common, counted across the 331 positions we hold weights for in LCTU and 120 in QLV.
Which pays a higher dividend, LCTU or QLV?
LCTU yields 0.97% while QLV yields 1.50%, so QLV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QLV better than LCTU?
QLV has a lower expense ratio. LCTU led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. LCTU is less concentrated, with 35.5% 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.