QDF vs REGL: Performance, Holdings, Fees & Risk
QDF and REGL are ETFs, but they can differ materially in exposure, yield, fees and risk. QDF is Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF, while REGL is ProShares - S&P MidCap 400 Dividend Aristocrats ETF. QDF is broader by holdings count, with 144 positions versus 66 for REGL. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has REGL ahead on AIQ Score, 55 versus 53.
| Metric | QDF | REGL |
|---|---|---|
| Fund | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.4% | 0.4% |
| Holdings | 144 | 66 |
| Distribution yieldTrailing 12 months | 1.5% | 2.22% |
| Average volume | 24,427 | 57,471 |
| Performance | ||
| 1Y return | +16.5% | +7.9% |
| YTD return | +12.8% | +6.5% |
| 5Y annualized returnTotal return, distributions reinvested | +11.5% | +7.1% |
| Risk | ||
| Annualized volatility | 11.9% | 12.4% |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.1% | -9.8% |
| Max drawdown (5Y)Total return, distributions reinvested | -22.1% | -17% |
| Beta | 0.87 | 0.36 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.97 | 0.33 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.51 | 0.60 |
| AlgovestIQ | ||
| AIQ Score | 53/100 | 55/100 |
| AIQ Edge Score | 5/10 | 5/10 |
| Momentum | 57/100 | 60/100 |
| Risk Resilience | 87/100 | 72/100 |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF vs ProShares - S&P MidCap 400 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
REGL leads
REGL leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from QDF.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support REGL, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF
ProShares - S&P MidCap 400 Dividend Aristocrats ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors REGL over QDF, 55 versus 53 as of Oct 21, 2026. REGL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while QDF holds the stronger risk resilience profile. REGL also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor REGL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. REGL lead: Reversed — QDF led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; REGL now leads by 2.
Compare Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF and ProShares - S&P MidCap 400 Dividend Aristocrats ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
QDF vs REGL: 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 | REGL | Fits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lower costExpense ratio | 0.4% | 0.4% | Similar |
| Broader diversificationNumber of holdings | 144 | 66 | QDF |
| Higher incomeTrailing 12-month distribution yield | 1.5% | 2.22% | REGL |
| Smaller drawdownsMax drawdown, 5 years | -22.1% | -17% | REGL |
| Lower volatilityAnnualized volatility, 1 year | 11.9% | 12.4% | Similar |
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 REGL 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.
- Risk Resilience87 vs 72QDF +15
- Value46 vs 54REGL +8
- Momentum57 vs 60Even
- Quality40 vs 42Even
1 of 4 evidence groups favor REGL. REGL’s edge is concentrated in value; QDF keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +11
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
REGL's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QDF and REGL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
REGL (ProShares - S&P MidCap 400 Dividend Aristocrats ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
QDF (Northern Trust Quality Dividend ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals.
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 | REGL | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.4% | 0.4% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Holdings | 144 | 66 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 24,427 | 57,471 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 11.9% | 12.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown (1Y) | -8.1% | -9.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss over the past year. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.97 | 0.33 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.87 | 0.36 | 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 REGL: five-year payout growth
REGL grew its split-adjusted payout faster over 2020-2025 — 5.21% a year against QDF's 2.46%. QDF: The 2020 payout was 20.3% below 2019, so the growth rate measures a recovery from a weak starting year.
| Dividend metric | QDF | REGL |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y payout CAGR | 2.46% | 5.21% |
| 2020 annual payout | $1.178 | $1.513 |
| 2025 annual payout | $1.330 | $1.950 |
| Calendar-year declines | 2 | 1 |
| Peer rank | #26 of 33 | #17 of 33 |
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
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor REGL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 53 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | REGL | Value 46 vs 54 |
| Technicals | QDF | Price vs 50-day -0.1% vs -1.2%; vs 200-day 4.9% vs -0.5% |
| Risk Resilience | QDF | Risk Resilience 87 vs 72 |
| 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 REGL 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 REGL.
How the comparison changed
95 daily snapshots · Jun 22 – Oct 20REGL lead: Reversed — QDF led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; REGL now leads by 2.
- Today
- REGL +2
- 53 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- QDF +1
- 52 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- QDF +4
- 50 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 55 vs 55
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when REGL 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%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only REGL
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active, ATR Contraction - Coiling.
REGL 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.02%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1QDF closes the Value gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to REGL's edge.
- 2QDF's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3REGL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 4 of 6 windows| Metric | QDF | REGL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.4% | 1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.3% | 0.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.5% | -3.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8% | -0.5% |
| Year to date | 12.8% | 6.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.5% | 7.9% |
Technicals
QDF has the stronger structure| Metric | QDF | REGL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.2 | 70.6 |
| ADX (14) | 7.4 | 34.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.1% | -1.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.9% | -0.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 7.9% | 12.8% |
Risk
QDF is the more resilient| Metric | QDF | REGL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.87 | 0.36 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.97 | 0.33 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.51 | 0.6 |
| Max drawdown | -8.1% | -9.8% |
| Current drawdown | -2.5% | -6.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 11.9% | 12.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.2% | -1.2% |
Straight answers
Short answers to the questions fund investors ask about this pair, from the figures above.
Which ETF is more diversified, QDF or REGL?
QDF holds more positions: 144 versus 66 for REGL.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
Neither: both charge 0.4% a year.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
REGL, with a trailing 12-month distribution yield of 2.22% against 1.5% for QDF.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
Their volatility over the past year is similar: 11.9% annualized for QDF and 12.4% for REGL.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
REGL fell less from peak to trough over the past five years: -17% against -22.1% for QDF.
Compare QDF and REGL 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.