LVDS vs QDF
JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Large Value ETF vs Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF
Which is better, LVDS or QDF?
LVDS has been ahead.
LVDS has a lower expense ratio. LVDS led over 1Y and the full window. LVDS is less concentrated, with 30.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 39.3%.
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 | LVDS | QDF |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.30%Best | 0.37% |
| AUM | $114M | $2.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 7.56% | 1.52% |
| Holdings | 133 | 146 |
| YTD Return | +20.52%Best | +12.89% |
| 1Y Return | +25.95%Best | +17.43% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +19.13% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +11.89% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 10.6% | 9.8%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -6.6%Best | -7.9% |
| $10,000 over 1.3 years | $13,088Best | $12,610 |
| Top 10 Weight | 30.3%Best | 39.3% |
| Fund Family | J.P. Morgan Asset Management | Northern Trust Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Jul 11, 2025 | Dec 14, 2012 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 14, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.3 years).
LVDS vs QDF 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 1.3 years both funds cover.
LVDS vs QDF Performance
JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Large Value ETF (LVDS) is an ETF from J.P. Morgan Asset Management and Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF (QDF) is an ETF from Northern Trust Asset Management. Over the past year LVDS returned +25.95% while QDF returned +17.43%. Year to date, LVDS is up 20.52% versus a gain of 12.89% for QDF.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
LVDS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 10.6% compared with 9.8% for QDF. 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 -6.6% for LVDS and -7.9% for QDF. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.82. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
LVDS charges 0.30% per year while QDF charges 0.37%. On a $10,000 position that is $30 vs $37 annually, a gap of $7 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, LVDS currently yields 7.56% against 1.52% for QDF.
Holdings Overlap
33.5% of LVDS's money is in holdings QDF also owns. 35.4% of QDF's money is in holdings LVDS also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
32 positions in common, counted across the 131 positions we hold weights for in LVDS and 140 in QDF, against full books of 133 and 146.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 107 positions for QDF that do not appear in our book for LVDS (63.7% of the fund), and 98 for LVDS that do not appear in QDF (65.7%).
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 LVDS | Weight in QDF | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.39% | 9.39% | 4.00% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.92% | 4.55% | 1.37% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 1.45% | 2.88% | 1.43% |
| PMPhilip Morris International Inc. | 1.66% | 1.88% | 0.22% |
| LRCXLrcx Uw Equity | 0.30% | 2.99% | 2.69% |
| XOMExxonmobil Corp. | 2.46% | 0.45% | 2.01% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.29% | 1.57% | 0.28% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 1.93% | 0.58% | 1.35% |
| MSMorgan Stanley | 1.27% | 1.08% | 0.19% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 0.49% | 1.74% | 1.25% |
35.4% of QDF is already inside LVDS.
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, LVDS or QDF?
LVDS has an expense ratio of 0.30% while QDF charges 0.37%. LVDS is the cheaper option, by $7 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, LVDS or QDF?
Over the past year LVDS returned +25.95% vs +17.43% for QDF, so LVDS leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (1 years), LVDS annualized +23.00% vs +19.53% for QDF. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, LVDS or QDF?
LVDS has been the more volatile fund at 10.6% annualized versus 9.8% for QDF. Worst drawdown: LVDS -6.6% vs QDF -7.9%.
Should I hold both LVDS and QDF?
LVDS and QDF have a monthly-return correlation of 0.82, 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 LVDS and QDF?
35.4% of QDF's money is in holdings LVDS also owns. 35.4% of QDF's is in holdings LVDS also owns. They hold 32 positions in common, counted across the 131 positions we hold weights for in LVDS and 140 in QDF.
Which pays a higher dividend, LVDS or QDF?
LVDS yields 7.56% while QDF yields 1.52%, so LVDS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is QDF better than LVDS?
LVDS has a lower expense ratio. LVDS led over 1Y and the full window. LVDS is less concentrated, with 30.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 39.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.