QDF vs ULVM
Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF vs VictoryShares US Value Momentum ETF
Which is better, QDF or ULVM?
Nearly the same fund. ULVM costs less.
ULVM has a lower expense ratio. QDF led over 5Y and the full window, ULVM over 1Y and 3Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. ULVM is less concentrated, with 13.6% 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 | QDF | ULVM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.37% | 0.20%Best |
| AUM | $2.2B | $260M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.52% | 1.81% |
| Holdings | 146 | 126 |
| YTD Return | +12.89% | +13.74%Best |
| 1Y Return | +17.43% | +17.70%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.13% | +21.11%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.89%Best | +11.11% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.1%Best | 16.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -37.2%Best | -40.8% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,537Best | $16,934 |
| Top 10 Weight | 39.3% | 13.6%Best |
| Fund Family | Northern Trust Asset Management | Victory Capital Management Inc. |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Dec 14, 2012 | Oct 24, 2017 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 26, 2017 to Oct 14, 2026 (9 years).
QDF vs ULVM 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 9 years both funds cover.
QDF vs ULVM Performance
Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF (QDF) is an ETF from Northern Trust Asset Management and VictoryShares US Value Momentum ETF (ULVM) is an ETF from Victory Capital Management Inc.. Over the past year QDF returned +17.43% while ULVM returned +17.70%. Year to date, QDF is up 12.89% versus a gain of 13.74% for ULVM.
Over three years, QDF compounded at +19.13% per year against +21.11% for ULVM; over five years the annualized figures are +11.89% and +11.11% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, QDF has the edge at +10.13% annualized vs +9.72%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ULVM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.9% compared with 16.1% 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 -37.2% for QDF and -40.8% for ULVM. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.95. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
QDF charges 0.37% per year while ULVM charges 0.20%. On a $10,000 position that is $37 vs $20 annually, a gap of $17 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QDF currently yields 1.52% against 1.81% for ULVM.
Holdings Overlap
18.7% of QDF's money is in holdings ULVM also owns. 23.4% of ULVM's money is in holdings QDF also owns.
ULVM and QDF share little of their money.
29 positions in common, counted across the 140 positions we hold weights for in QDF and 125 in ULVM, against full books of 146 and 126.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 92 positions for ULVM that do not appear in our book for QDF (73.8% of the fund), and 109 for QDF that do not appear in ULVM (80.2%).
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 QDF | Weight in ULVM | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 2.88% | 1.19% | 1.69% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc Cap Stk Cl A | 2.31% | 0.78% | 1.53% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.74% | 0.35% | 1.39% |
| EDConsolidated Edison Inc. | 0.53% | 1.38% | 0.85% |
| BMYBristol-Myers Squibb Co. | 0.89% | 0.86% | 0.03% |
| EWBCEast West Bancorp, Inc. | 0.51% | 1.08% | 0.57% |
| SNASnap-On Inc. | 0.42% | 1.17% | 0.75% |
| VICIVici Properties Inc | 0.46% | 1.12% | 0.66% |
| PFGPrincipalfinancialgroupinc. | 0.41% | 1.17% | 0.76% |
| AFLAflac Inc. | 0.18% | 1.34% | 1.16% |
23.4% of ULVM is already inside QDF.
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, QDF or ULVM?
QDF has an expense ratio of 0.37% while ULVM charges 0.20%. ULVM is the cheaper option, by $17 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QDF or ULVM?
Over the past year QDF returned +17.43% vs +17.70% for ULVM, so ULVM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), QDF annualized +10.13% vs +9.72% for ULVM. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QDF or ULVM?
ULVM has been the more volatile fund at 16.9% annualized versus 16.1% for QDF. Worst drawdown: QDF -37.2% vs ULVM -40.8%.
Should I hold both QDF and ULVM?
QDF and ULVM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.95, 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 QDF and ULVM?
23.4% of ULVM's money is in holdings QDF also owns. 23.4% of ULVM's is in holdings QDF also owns. They hold 29 positions in common, counted across the 140 positions we hold weights for in QDF and 125 in ULVM.
Which pays a higher dividend, QDF or ULVM?
QDF yields 1.52% while ULVM yields 1.81%, so ULVM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ULVM better than QDF?
ULVM has a lower expense ratio. QDF led over 5Y and the full window, ULVM over 1Y and 3Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. ULVM is less concentrated, with 13.6% 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.