QLTY vs. RFV ETF Comparison

Comparison of GMO U.S. Quality ETF (QLTY) to Guggenheim S&P Midcap 400 Pure Value ETF (RFV)
QLTY

GMO U.S. Quality ETF

QLTY Description

QLTY seeks total return by investing in US companies deemed high quality. These companies are defined as having established businesses capable of delivering substantial returns on past investments, utilizing cash flows for high-return investments, or returning cash to shareholders through dividends or share buybacks. The investment strategy combines systematic factors like profitability and leverage, alongside judgmental factors such as assessments of future profitability and growth prospects. It may also use various valuation methodologies, including discounted cash flow analysis and multiples of price-to-earnings, revenues, book values, or other fundamental metrics, to acquire underrated stocks. Additionally, the fund may invest in other ETFs. The fund may also invest in the GMO U.S. Treasury Fund, and money market funds. Investment decisions are not constrained by portfolio turnover rates or benchmark considerations.

Grade (RS Rating)

Last Trade

$32.45

Average Daily Volume

265,587

Number of Holdings *

34

* may have additional holdings in another (foreign) market
RFV

Guggenheim S&P Midcap 400 Pure Value ETF

RFV Description The investment seeks to replicate as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the performance of the S&P MidCap 400 Pure Value Index Total Return. The fund will invest at least 90% of its net assets, plus any borrowings for investment purposes, in the equity securities included in the underlying index. The underlying index is narrow in focus, containing only those S&P MidCap 400 companies with strong value characteristics as selected by S&P. It may hold up to 10% of its assets in securities not included in the underlying index. The fund is non-diversified.

Grade (RS Rating)

Last Trade

$126.73

Average Daily Volume

5,883

Number of Holdings *

82

* may have additional holdings in another (foreign) market
Performance
Period QLTY RFV
30 Days 0.40% 6.42%
60 Days 0.12% 8.22%
90 Days 2.04% 8.16%
12 Months 26.17% 24.43%
1 Overlapping Holdings
Symbol Grade Weight in QLTY Weight in RFV Overlap
ARMK B 2.56% 1.48% 1.48%
QLTY Overweight 33 Positions Relative to RFV
Symbol Grade Weight
MSFT D 6.46%
AAPL C 5.33%
ORCL A 4.71%
META D 4.5%
GOOGL C 4.43%
JNJ C 4.24%
ABT B 4.17%
UNH B 3.62%
TXN C 3.53%
ACN B 3.3%
V A 3.22%
PG C 3.2%
ISRG A 2.92%
KLAC F 2.85%
LRCX F 2.85%
CRM B 2.84%
KO D 2.81%
HLT A 2.62%
ELV F 2.5%
WFC A 2.45%
AVGO D 2.45%
MRK D 2.41%
AMZN C 2.4%
USB A 2.31%
OTIS C 2.25%
TJX A 2.14%
GE D 1.73%
MDLZ F 1.72%
LLY F 1.61%
STZ D 1.59%
CI D 1.49%
DGX A 1.35%
TMO F 0.91%
QLTY Underweight 81 Positions Relative to RFV
Symbol Grade Weight
LAD A -2.66%
AVT C -2.59%
MTZ B -2.59%
SNX D -2.39%
JLL D -2.27%
THC D -2.24%
USFD A -2.07%
M F -2.07%
UNM A -2.02%
JWN D -1.98%
X B -1.97%
PPC C -1.96%
AAL B -1.92%
GHC B -1.9%
ARW D -1.9%
PFGC B -1.86%
PBF D -1.79%
AN C -1.79%
AA A -1.78%
WCC B -1.75%
R B -1.74%
TMHC C -1.74%
JEF A -1.7%
DINO D -1.54%
GT C -1.43%
MAN F -1.42%
KD B -1.42%
ASB B -1.41%
KMPR A -1.33%
RGA A -1.27%
ALLY C -1.24%
FYBR C -1.23%
CUZ B -1.22%
ZION B -1.18%
CMC B -1.15%
WHR B -1.15%
PAG B -1.15%
FLR B -1.14%
COHR B -1.13%
FNB A -1.11%
FHN A -1.03%
PVH C -1.03%
THO B -1.02%
KRC B -0.99%
VLY B -0.98%
JHG B -0.92%
CLF F -0.92%
TCBI C -0.91%
ONB C -0.89%
LEA F -0.89%
PRGO C -0.84%
POST C -0.82%
PB B -0.82%
VAC C -0.8%
HOG D -0.78%
CNH C -0.78%
IRT A -0.76%
CNO B -0.74%
AR B -0.71%
UGI C -0.71%
GEF A -0.68%
GAP C -0.67%
WBS A -0.67%
SWX B -0.64%
BJ A -0.63%
ENOV C -0.62%
ORI A -0.62%
BIO C -0.59%
BKH A -0.59%
OSK C -0.58%
NVST B -0.53%
FAF A -0.52%
KNX C -0.48%
BERY C -0.48%
SR A -0.47%
AGCO D -0.45%
UAA C -0.44%
NOV C -0.42%
UA C -0.41%
VSH F -0.35%
CNXC F -0.23%
Compare ETFs