QDF vs QDVO: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QDF and QDVO are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QDF is Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF, while QDVO is Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF. QDF is broader by holdings count, with 144 positions versus 49 for QDVO. QDF has the lower expense ratio. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has QDF ahead on AIQ Score, 53 versus 47.
| Metric | QDF | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.4% | 0.56% |
| Holdings | 144 | 49 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.5% | 10.69% |
| Average volume | 24,427 | 238,966 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +16.5% | +1.4% |
| YTD return | +12.8% | +1.5% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.9% | 13.7% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.1% | -14.8% |
| Beta | 0.87 | 0.96 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.97 | -0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.51 | -0.22 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 53/100 | 47/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 3/10 |
| Momentum | 57/100 | 41/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 87/100 | 83/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF vs Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
QDF leads
QDF leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from QDVO.
Fragile: 4 of 4 evidence groups support QDF, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF
Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QDF over QDVO, 53 versus 47 as of Oct 21, 2026. QDF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while QDVO holds the stronger quality profile. QDF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QDF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. QDF lead: Reversed — QDVO led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; QDF now leads by 6.
Compare Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF and Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QDF vs QDVO: which fits what
Each row is settled by a single measure. Where the gap is too small to matter it reads Similar, and no row decides the comparison as a whole.
| If you want | QDF | QDVO | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.4% | 0.56% | QDF |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 144 | 49 | QDF |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.5% | 10.69% | QDVO |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 1 year | -8.1% | -14.8% | QDF |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.9% | 13.7% | QDF |
Similar means the gap is within 0.01 percentage points of expense ratio, 25% more holdings, 3 points of top-10 weight, 0.2 points of yield, 2 points of drawdown or 1 point of volatility. Past drawdowns and volatility describe the funds’ history, not their future.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes for both ETFs.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare QDF and QDVO against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum57 vs 41QDF +16
- Value46 vs 37QDF +9
- Quality40 vs 45QDVO +5
- Risk Resilience87 vs 83QDF +4
4 of 4 evidence groups favor QDF. QDF’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; QDVO keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
QDF's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QDF and QDVO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QDF (Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
QDVO (Amplify CWP Growth & Income ETF): the counter-case, on quality.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | QDF | QDVO | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.4% | 0.56% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 144 | 49 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 24,427 | 238,966 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.9% | 13.7% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.1% | -14.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.97 | -0.14 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.87 | 0.96 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
Sector exposure for each fund, ordered by the size of the difference.
QDF vs QDVO: five-year payout growth
QDF grew its split-adjusted payout at 2.46% a year over 2020-2025. QDVO began paying distributions in 2024, so it has no 2020-2025 growth rate to compare. QDF: The 2020 payout was 20.3% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | QDF | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 annual payout | $1.330 | $2.878 |
| Peer rank | #26 of 33 | not ranked |
Split-adjusted annual distributions, 2020–2025. Research as of Sep 19, 2026. Yield and expense ratio above are current values, not part of this window.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor QDF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | QDF | 53 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | QDF | Value 46 vs 37 |
| Technicals | QDF | Price vs 50-day -0.1% vs -0.4%; vs 200-day 4.9% vs 0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | QDF | Risk Resilience 87 vs 83 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of QDF and QDVO and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on QDF.
How the comparison changed
41 daily snapshots · Sep 8 – Oct 20QDF lead: Reversed — QDVO led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; QDF now leads by 6.
- Today
- QDF +6
- 53 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- QDF +6
- 52 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- QDVO +3
- 50 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- Not covered
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when QDVO moved ahead of QDF.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only QDF
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling, MACD Bearish Crossover.
QDF leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.31%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.05%, AIQ -1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1QDVO closes the Momentum gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to QDF's edge.
- 2QDVO's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3QDF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Performance
QDF leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | QDF | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.4% | -2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.3% | -3.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.5% | -0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8% | 1.8% |
| Year to date | 12.8% | 1.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.5% | 1.4% |
Technicals
QDF has the stronger structure| Metric | QDF | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.2 | 41.9 |
| ADX (14) | 7.4 | 17.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.1% | -0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.9% | 0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 7.9% | 12% |
Risk
QDF is the more resilient| Metric | QDF | QDVO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.87 | 0.96 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.97 | -0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.51 | -0.22 |
| Max drawdown | -8.1% | -14.8% |
| Current drawdown | -2.5% | -4.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.9% | 13.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.2% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, QDF or QDVO?
QDF holds more positions: 144 versus 49 for QDVO.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
QDF has the lower expense ratio, 0.4% a year against 0.56% for QDVO.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
QDVO, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 10.69% against 1.5% for QDF.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
QDVO has been more volatile over the past year, at 13.7% annualized against 11.9% for QDF.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
QDF fell less from peak to trough over the past year: -8.1% against -14.8% for QDVO.
Compare QDF and QDVO with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.