Back to Research

Defining Quality

Unlike value or momentum, "quality" lacks a consensus definition. Various practitioners and academics have proposed different metrics, all aiming to capture companies with superior fundamentals. This ambiguity creates both challenges and opportunities—the factor's efficacy depends critically on construction choices.

Quality's Resilience

Quality has been one of the most consistent factors in recent years, outperforming during the growth drawdown of 2022 and providing stability when value and momentum struggled. Understanding why requires examining what quality actually captures.

Common Quality Metrics

We evaluate several widely-used quality indicators:

Profitability Measures

Stability Measures

Safety Measures

Construction Approaches

We compare four quality portfolio construction methodologies:

Single-metric (Gross Profitability): Simple and transparent, but ignores other quality dimensions.

Composite score: Equal-weight combination of profitability, stability, and safety metrics. More robust but requires subjective weighting choices.

Sector-neutral: Apply quality screens within sectors rather than across the market. Reduces sector bets but may miss cross-sector quality dispersion.

Quality-at-reasonable-price (QARP): Combine quality with valuation filters to avoid overpaying for quality. Addresses the criticism that quality is expensive.

Empirical Results

Across our testing period (2000-2025), we find:

Conclusion

Quality factor portfolios can be constructed in many ways, and construction choices meaningfully impact performance. We favor composite approaches that combine multiple quality dimensions with sector-neutral implementation, accepting modest complexity for improved robustness. For simpler implementations, gross profitability remains the single most effective metric.

SA

Stelios Anastasiades

Founder & Chief Investment Officer at Abacus Wealth Group.