QBIF ranks 2nd and ARLI 16th of 26 funds in the Developed International Buffer 15% Category.
ARLI vs QBIF
0.0%by weight
QBIF −0.05pt a year
0.79%0.74%
QBIF 3.9×the volume
7392.9K
ARLI vs QBIF Performance
−2.4%−0.9%
- ARLI 0.79%
- QBIF 0.74%, better
- ARLI $8M
- QBIF $9M
- ARLI 2
- QBIF 3
- ARLI 739 sh
- QBIF 2.9K sh, better
- ARLI $25.69
- QBIF $25.95
ETF.net Grade
| Pillar | ARLI | QBIF |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | B68 | A78Higher |
| Mission | ||
| Risk | F24 | A76Higher |
| Tradability | F16 | D35Higher |
| Holdings | B65Higher | B55 |
| Durability | F22 | D26Higher |
Rank among Developed International Buffer 15% funds
Same Category. ARLI and QBIF are both graded against the same 26 Developed International Buffer 15% funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
ARLI vs QBIF Holdings
How ARLI and QBIF differ
0.0%
Shared holdings make up 0.0% of ARLI and 0.0% of QBIF.
Level by level
- Holdings0.0%
Sector
| Sector | More in ARLIMore in QBIF | ARLI | QBIF |
|---|---|---|---|
| Financials | Same weight | 26.1% | 26.1% |
| Industrials | Same weight | 18.7% | 18.7% |
| Technology | Same weight | 12.0% | 12.0% |
| Health Care | Same weight | 10.1% | 10.1% |
| Consumer Discretionary | Same weight | 7.1% | 7.1% |
| Consumer Staples | Same weight | 6.4% | 6.4% |
| Materials | Same weight | 5.8% | 5.8% |
| Communication | Same weight | 4.7% | 4.7% |
| Energy | Same weight | 4.0% | 4.0% |
| Utilities | Same weight | 3.6% | 3.6% |
| Real Estate | Same weight | 1.5% | 1.5% |
Country, concentration and asset class
Country
| Country | More in ARLIMore in QBIF | ARLI | QBIF |
|---|---|---|---|
| Japan | Same weight | 24.3% | 24.3% |
| United Kingdom | Same weight | 14.1% | 14.1% |
| Switzerland | Same weight | 10.2% | 10.2% |
| Germany | Same weight | 8.8% | 8.8% |
| France | Same weight | 8.3% | 8.3% |
| Australia | Same weight | 6.7% | 6.7% |
| Netherlands | Same weight | 6.0% | 6.0% |
| Spain | Same weight | 3.7% | 3.7% |
| Other countries (17) | Same weight | 18.0% | 18.0% |
Outside the US: ARLI 99% developed, 1% emerging. QBIF 99% developed, 1% emerging.
Concentration
- ARLI100.9%
- QBIF101.4%
- ARLI2
- QBIF2
Asset class
- ARLI
- Equity
- QBIF
- Equity
Holdings
- Only in ARLI2
- In both0
- Only in QBIF2
Only in ARLI
2 securities, 100% of ARLI by weight
- Efa 03/31/2027 5.32 C97.66%
- Efa 03/31/2027 101.72 P3.28%
Only in QBIF
2 securities, 100% of QBIF by weight
- Efa 12/31/2026 0.78 C98.11%
- Efa 12/31/2026 103.88 P2.74%
Weight gaps
ARLI and QBIF share no securities.
How we measure overlap
Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.
ARLI vs QBIF Cost
Overpaying ARLI vs QBIF
$867
On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.
ARLI 0.79%
$15,174
QBIF 0.74%
$14,307
Cost over time
Year by year
| Year | ARLI | QBIF | Overpaying |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $1,405 | $1,319 | $86 |
| 20 | $5,331 | $5,015 | $316 |
| 30 | $15,174 | $14,307 | $867 |
- 0.79%ARLI
- 0.74%QBIF, cheaper
- Middle half of Developed International Buffer 15% funds
- Median 0.85%
QBIF 6th cheapest of 26 funds
ARLI 8th cheapest of 26 funds
ARLI vs QBIF Dividends
- ARLI None
- QBIF None
Distribution history
ARLI vs QBIF Risk
Fall from peak · 5 years
Risk facts
- Market sensitivity
- ARLI 0.17QBIF 0.03
Popular comparisons
- 0.79% · 0.69%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.74% · 0.69%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.79% · 0.85%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.74% · 0.85%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.79% · 0.85%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.74% · 0.85%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.