QLTY vs UXJA
GMO US Quality ETF vs FT Vest US Equity Uncapped Accelerator ETF - January
Which is better, QLTY or UXJA?
Nearly the same fund. QLTY costs less.
QLTY has a lower expense ratio. QLTY led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95.
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 | QLTY | UXJA |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.50%Best | 0.85% |
| AUM | $5.4B | $12M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.66% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 90 | 8 |
| YTD Return | +14.13%Best | +13.40% |
| 1Y Return | +20.95%Best | +17.01% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +21.84% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.9%Best | 13.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -17.0%Best | -20.0% |
| $10,000 over 1.7 years | $13,481Best | $12,864 |
| Fund Family | GMO | First Trust Portfolios (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Nov 13, 2023 | Jan 17, 2025 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.7 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jan 21, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.7 years).
QLTY vs UXJA 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 1.7 years both funds cover.
QLTY vs UXJA Performance
GMO US Quality ETF (QLTY) is an ETF from GMO and FT Vest US Equity Uncapped Accelerator ETF - January (UXJA) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year QLTY returned +20.95% while UXJA returned +17.01%. Year to date, QLTY is up 14.13% versus a gain of 13.40% for UXJA.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
UXJA has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 13.8% compared with 12.9% for QLTY. 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 -17.0% for QLTY and -20.0% for UXJA. 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
QLTY charges 0.50% per year while UXJA charges 0.85%. On a $10,000 position that is $50 vs $85 annually, a gap of $35 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QLTY currently yields 0.66% against 0.00% for UXJA.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of QLTY and UXJA you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, QLTY or UXJA?
QLTY has an expense ratio of 0.50% while UXJA charges 0.85%. QLTY is the cheaper option, by $35 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, QLTY or UXJA?
Over the past year QLTY returned +20.95% vs +17.01% for UXJA, so QLTY leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), QLTY annualized +19.21% vs +15.97% for UXJA. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, QLTY or UXJA?
UXJA has been the more volatile fund at 13.8% annualized versus 12.9% for QLTY. Worst drawdown: QLTY -17.0% vs UXJA -20.0%.
Should I hold both QLTY and UXJA?
QLTY and UXJA 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.
Which pays a higher dividend, QLTY or UXJA?
QLTY yields 0.66% while UXJA yields 0.00%, so QLTY currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is UXJA better than QLTY?
QLTY has a lower expense ratio. QLTY led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.