Skip to content
etf.net

MOTG vs SQS

VanEck Morningstar Global Wide Moat ETF

MOTGBCboe

Sapient Quality Select ETF

SQSCNasdaq

Overlap

7.7%by weight

Expense ratio

MOTG −0.28pt a year

MOTG0.52%SQS0.80%

Avg volume · 30D

SQS 12.1×the volume

MOTG939SQS11.3K

MOTG vs SQS Performance

Jul 31, 2026 – Nov 2, 2026

+0.7%MOTG−2.8%SQS

Jul 31, 2026 to Nov 2, 2026. MOTG +0.7%. SQS −2.8%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.2%4%Jul 2026Sep 2026Nov 2026
Expense ratio
MOTG 0.52%, better
SQS 0.80%
Fund size
MOTG $18M
SQS $1.35B
1Y total return
MOTG +5.3%
SQS No data
Yield (12M)
MOTG 17.03%
SQS No data
Holdings
MOTG 79
SQS 35
Avg volume (30D)
MOTG 939 sh
SQS 11.3K sh, better
NAV per share
MOTG $40.08
SQS $27.05
52W range

ETF.net Grade

MOTG: Cost 81, Risk 44, Mission not scored, Tradability 29, Holdings 79, Durability 67. SQS: Cost 29, Risk 59, Mission not scored, Tradability 58, Holdings 35, Durability 68.
Pillar letters and Scores for MOTG, SQS, with each pillar’s weight
PillarMOTGSQS
Cost30% weightA81HigherD29
Mission25% weightNot scoredNot scored
Risk15% weightC44B59Higher
Tradability15% weightD29B58Higher
Holdings10% weightA79HigherD35
Durability5% weightB67B68Higher

Rank among Global Active Quality / Moat funds

How we build Categories ›
Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Same Category. MOTG and SQS are both graded against the same 5 Global Active Quality / Moat funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Global Active Quality / Moat⁠

Category · 5 funds
See all 5 ›

MOTG ranks 2nd and SQS 3rd of 5 funds in the Global Active Quality / Moat Category.

  1. Rank 1BFITZFitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETFScore 63
  2. Rank 2BMOTGVanEck Morningstar Global Wide Moat ETFScore 62
  3. Rank 3CSQSSapient Quality Select ETFScore 44
  4. Rank 4CBCGDBaron Global Durable Advantage ETFScore 43

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

MOTGBVanEck Morningstar Global Wide Moat ETF

SQSCSapient Quality Select ETF

In short

MOTG The global side of VanEck's moat franchise: roughly 80 companies Morningstar rates as having wide competitive advantages, then screened again for the biggest discounts to Morningstar's own fair value estimates.

SQS A boutique manager's concentrated take on global quality and growth, in an ETF wrapper. Actively picked, non-diversified, no index to hide behind, and it showed up with multi-billion-dollar size for a 2026 debut.

Stated mandate

MOTG The fund provides exposure to companies with Morningstar Economic Moat ratings of wide, emphasizing those trading at the lowest current market price-to-fair-value ratios.

SQS The Fund seeks long-term total return. It is actively managed and invests in companies that the sub-adviser believes have quality and growth characteristics across sectors and geographies.

Why people hold it

  • MOTG Two screens, not one: a wide moat rating first, then the widest discount to Morningstar's fair value estimate. Quality gets pricey; this one insists on paying less for it.vaneck.com
  • At 0.52% a year, it undercuts the median fee in its global active-equity peer group (0.69%).
  • Roughly 80 stocks drawn worldwide, so the moats aren't all American. Portfolio construction is one of its stronger suits inside the peer group.
  • Live since 2018, so the record reflects real market history rather than a backtest.
  • SQS Genuinely active: the sub-adviser buys companies it judges to have quality and growth traits across sectors and geographies, US and overseas, rather than tracking a global index.sec.gov
  • Non-diversified by design, so high-conviction names can carry real weight instead of being diluted across thousands of tickers.etfarchitect.com
  • Rare for a 2026 launch: it is already a multi-billion-dollar fund, and it sits in the upper half of its global active-equity peer group.

Worth knowing

  • MOTG Small and thinly traded, which typically means wider bid/ask spreads than mainstream global funds.
  • Cheaper than the peer median, not cheap outright: broad global funds like GSWO (0.15%) and DFAW (0.24%) charge less than half.
  • Distributions come annually or semiannually, so it isn't built as a steady income stream.
  • SQS 0.80% a year, above the 0.69% median for its peer group and many times what index-built global rivals like GSWO (0.15%) or AVGE (0.25%) charge.
  • Trades lightly for its size, so bid/ask spreads can run wider than on household-name global funds.
  • Live since March 2026, so the track record is short, and a concentrated book means single names move the ride more.etfarchitect.com

Full MOTG profile⁠

Full SQS profile⁠

MOTG vs SQS Holdings

How MOTG and SQS differ

Overlap by weight

7.7%

Shared holdings make up 22.8% of SQS and 7.7% of MOTG.

Level by level

  • Holdings5 in both7.7%
  • Countryby domicile38.7%
  • Asset classEquity100%

Sector

No Sector split for SQS.

Country, concentration and asset class

Country by domicile

Country weights in MOTG and SQS, widest gap first
CountryMore in MOTGMore in SQS
United StatesSQS +59.6 points
JapanMOTG +12.5 points
ChinaMOTG +11.3 points
United KingdomMOTG +10.2 points
FranceMOTG +8.7 points
NetherlandsMOTG +6.4 points
GermanyMOTG +4.1 points
AustraliaMOTG +3.3 points
Other countries (5)MOTG +3.1 points

Outside the US: MOTG 76% developed, 24% emerging.

Concentration

Weight in the 10 largest Holdings

  • MOTG21.6%
  • SQS56.0%

Securities held

  • MOTG75
  • SQS35

Asset class

MOTG
Equity
SQS
Equity

Holdings

  • Only in MOTG70
  • In both5
  • Only in SQS30

Only in MOTG

70 securities, 92.4% of MOTG by weight

  • Danaher Corp2.30%
  • Estee Lauder Cos Inc/The2.26%
  • Reckitt Benckiser Group Plc2.18%

Only in SQS

30 securities, 77.2% of SQS by weight

  • Apple Inc8.08%
  • Alphabet Inc6.35%
  • Eli Lilly & Co6.12%

Weight gaps

All 5 Holdings in both funds, largest gap first.

Holding weights in MOTG and SQS, widest gap first
HoldingMore in MOTGMore in SQS
Nvidia CorpNVDASQS +7.57 points
Microsoft CorpMSFTSQS +3.75 points
Broadcom IncAVGOSQS +2.01 points
Meta Platforms IncMETASQS +1.75 points
Monolithic Power Systems IncMPWRSQS +0.04 points

All 80 MOTG holdings⁠All SQS holdings⁠

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.

MOTG vs SQS Cost

Overpaying SQS vs MOTG

$4,995

On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.

  • MOTG 0.52%

    $10,351

  • SQS 0.80%

    $15,346

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • MOTG 0.52%
  • SQS 0.80%
  • Overpaying
One line per fund, from year 0 to year 30. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$5K$10K$15K$20K051015202530SQS $15,346MOTG $10,351

Year by year

YearMOTGSQSOverpaying
10$935$1,422$487
20$3,593$5,393$1,800
30$10,351$15,346$4,995

Expense ratio

  • 0.52%MOTG, cheaper
  • 0.80%SQS
  • Middle half of Global Active Quality / Moat funds
  • Median 0.75%

MOTG cheapest of 5 funds

SQS 4th cheapest of 5 funds

MOTG vs SQS Dividends

Last 12 months to Nov 2, 2026
Yield (12M)
MOTG 17.03%
SQS No data
Payout (12M)
MOTG $6.88
SQS None
Last payment
MOTG $6.88
SQS No data
Ex-dividend
MOTG Dec 22, 2025
SQS No data
Paid on
MOTG Dec 26, 2025
SQS No data
Frequency
MOTG Annual
SQS No data

Distribution history

Per share, 2018 to 2026, same scale for both

MOTGAnnual · 8 paymentsAll MOTG payments⁠
One bar per payment. 8 payments from 2018 to 2026 YTD. Dec 20, 2018 $0.11; Dec 23, 2019 $0.73; Dec 21, 2020 $1.03; Dec 20, 2021 $2.21; Dec 19, 2022 $1.17; Dec 18, 2023 $0.65; Dec 23, 2024 $2.03; Dec 22, 2025 $6.88. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$5202020232026YTD
SQSAll SQS payments⁠

No distribution history available.

MOTG vs SQS Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

This chart needs five years of history for both funds.

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
MOTG 12.4%SQS No data
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
MOTG 1.04SQS No data
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
MOTG −24.3%SQS No data
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
MOTG 0.84SQS 1.12

Popular comparisons

  • MOTGBvsFITZB

    VanEck Morningstar Global Wide Moat ETF · Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.52% · 0.75%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • SQSCvsFITZB

    Sapient Quality Select ETF · Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.80% · 0.75%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • MOTGBvsBCGDC

    VanEck Morningstar Global Wide Moat ETF · Baron Global Durable Advantage ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.52% · 0.75%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • SQSCvsBCGDC

    Sapient Quality Select ETF · Baron Global Durable Advantage ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.80% · 0.75%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • MOTGBvsETFTD

    VanEck Morningstar Global Wide Moat ETF · Fundsmith Equity ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.52% · 1.00%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

  • SQSCvsETFTD

    Sapient Quality Select ETF · Fundsmith Equity ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.80% · 1.00%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.