ETF comparison
Verified factor-similar pair

EDOW vs QDF

These US-listed equity ETFs share verified FF6 US factor exposure. The modeled volatility of their factor-return difference is at or below 3% annualized on both the same 36-month window and a longer factor-history check.

CMA
Current similarity score
84
Factor-similar

The score is 100 for identical fitted exposures and 80 at the 3% modeled tracking-error limit. It includes market and non-market factors; it does not indicate which fund earned or is expected to earn more. How to read this score.

Quick Read

  • QDF has the higher backtested relative Sharpe (1.086 vs 0.825).
  • QDF has the lower published fee (0.40% vs 0.50%).
  • EDOW is cheaper on dividend valuation (143 vs 169, where 100 is each fund's historical median).
  • QDF has the stronger regression fit (adjusted R-squared 0.967 vs 0.907).

These are screening signals, not a complete review of portfolio construction, turnover, taxes, or trading quality.

EDOW

First Trust Dow 30 Equal Weight ETF
CMA
Adj. R2
0.907
Rel. Sharpe
0.825
Mkt beta
0.88
AUM
US$295M
MER
0.50%
Valuation
143

QDF

FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund
CMA
Adj. R2
0.967
Rel. Sharpe
1.086
Mkt beta
0.94
AUM
US$2.0B
MER
0.40%
Valuation
169

Market beta uses the common 36-month window through 2026-08. Adjusted R² and relative Sharpe describe each fund's separately published full-history model.

Factor Exposure Match

Blue bars compare factor beta magnitude from the same 36 months shown above. Green bars compare absolute t-stat strength; dim bars indicate |t| below 1.96. Every factor enters the distance calculation regardless of its t-statistic.

SMB
EDOW
+0.01
|t|
+0.1
QDF
+0.02
|t|
+0.3
diff -0.01
HML
EDOW
+0.24
|t|
+2.3
QDF
+0.13
|t|
+2.0
diff +0.11
RMW
EDOW
+0.03
|t|
+0.4
QDF
+0.06
|t|
+1.3
diff -0.03
CMA
EDOW
+0.20
|t|
+1.7
QDF
+0.24
|t|
+3.3
diff -0.05
UMD
EDOW
-0.13
|t|
-2.2
QDF
+0.01
|t|
+0.2
diff -0.13

What Happened Over the Same 36 Months

EDOW adjusted total-return CAGR
16.84%
QDF adjusted total-return CAGR
17.98%

QDF ahead by 1.14 percentage points/year over 2023-09 through 2026-08. This is the observed difference between annualized compounded returns from adjusted prices, not an expected return or a factor-model estimate.

Historical factor attribution

Signed contribution to EDOW minus QDF, percentage points/year, using fitted 36-month exposures and average factor returns over those same months:

Market factor
-0.92
Other factors, combined
+0.04
Total factor-implied difference
-0.88

This arithmetic-average factor attribution excludes the regression intercept and fund-specific return. It therefore need not equal the observed CAGR difference and is not a forecast.

Why This Pair Matches

Modeled factor tracking error · 36m
2.39%/yr
Modeled tracking error · 120m factor history
2.36%/yr
Mkt beta diff
0.06
Rel. Sharpe diff
0.261

Fitted exposures and factor covariance estimate the volatility, not the average or direction, of the funds' modeled return difference. The common regression window is 2023-09 through 2026-08. A short-window estimate and a longer factor-history check must both be at or below 3.000%; this is a screening limit, not a forecast. Holdings, turnover, taxes and trading costs require a separate review. The Sharpe figures elsewhere on this page come from each fund's published full-history model and do not enter similarity ranking. See the full methodology.

EDOW fund page QDF fund page US ETF Leaders US Universe
Important context

VerifiedBeta publishes educational ETF research, not personalized investment advice, portfolio management, or security recommendations. Funds that screen well here can still be unsuitable for your objectives, taxes, liquidity needs, or constraints. Review fund documents, methodology assumptions, and your own circumstances before acting. See the full disclaimer.