Legg Mason Competition
| QLMLSX Fund | USD 13.87 -0.21 -1.49% |
Pair Correlation for Legg Mason and FEDERATED MDT Overview
Good diversification
The correlation between QLMLSX and QCLVX is -0.2, which Macroaxis classifies as Good diversification for the selected horizon. This matters because lower overlap can improve diversification, while higher overlap leaves more of the same risk inside the portfolio.
Moving against Legg Fund
While mean reversion in Legg Mason is a statistically observable tendency, it operates on uncertain timelines. Positions sized too aggressively against the trend can suffer sustained losses before reversion occurs.
Legg Mason Competition Correlation Matrix
Studying peer correlation around Legg Mason Partners gives investors a cleaner read on how much independent price behavior still exists across the competitive set. This matrix is most informative when investors want to know whether adding another peer would improve diversification, increase crowding, or leave total risk largely unchanged.
| 0.43 | 0.2 | 0.87 | 0.87 | 0.9 | 0.82 | SMVLX | ||
| 0.43 | 0.84 | 0.52 | 0.77 | 0.71 | 0.62 | HUDEX | ||
| 0.2 | 0.84 | 0.46 | 0.61 | 0.54 | 0.51 | BUYGX | ||
| 0.87 | 0.52 | 0.46 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.88 | GMLVX | ||
| 0.87 | 0.77 | 0.61 | 0.89 | 0.98 | 0.91 | RCEYX | ||
| 0.9 | 0.71 | 0.54 | 0.89 | 0.98 | 0.88 | VEIPX | ||
| 0.82 | 0.62 | 0.51 | 0.88 | 0.91 | 0.88 | QCLVX | ||
Risk-Adjusted Indicators
Surface-level performance for Legg Fund can mask how the business actually stacks up against its competitive set. Risk-adjusted metrics allow investors to compare Legg Mason's efficiency and downside exposure against peers in a more meaningful way. These indicators are quantitative in nature and help investors forecast volatility and risk-adjusted expected returns across various positions.| Mean Deviation | Jensen Alpha | Sortino Ratio | Treynor Ratio | Semi Deviation | Expected Shortfall | Potential Upside | Value @Risk | Maximum Drawdown | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMVLX | 0.65 | 0.11 | 0.16 | 0.05 | 0.80 | 1.84 | 3.74 | |||
| HUDEX | 0.56 | 0.04 | 0.00 | -0.04 | 0.00 | 0.83 | 4.42 | |||
| BUYGX | 0.34 | 0.01 | 0.00 | -0.08 | 0.00 | 0.62 | 2.16 | |||
| GMLVX | 0.96 | 0.19 | 0.12 | 0.09 | 1.37 | 2.03 | 7.82 | |||
| RCEYX | 0.53 | 0.06 | 0.00 | -0.02 | 0.00 | 0.90 | 3.00 | |||
| VEIPX | 0.51 | 0.04 | 0.00 | -0.05 | 0.00 | 1.05 | 3.47 | |||
| QCLVX | 0.55 | -0.01 | 0.14 | -0.05 | 0.72 | 1.17 | 3.40 |
Legg Mason Competitive Analysis
| Better Than Average | Worse Than Peers | View Performance Chart |
Legg Mason Competition Peer Performance Charts
How to Analyze Legg Mason Against Peers
Legg Mason's peer analysis compares Legg Mason with related companies to put valuation, quality, and risk metrics in context. This helps determine whether recent performance is company-specific or broadly sector-driven. A practical workflow includes:- Set a relevant peer group: Include direct competitors and close alternatives with comparable business exposure.
- Benchmark core financials: Compare profitability, growth, capital structure, and cash flow quality.
- Check valuation dispersion: Review whether Legg Mason trades at a premium or discount versus peers and why.
- Evaluate risk profile: Compare volatility, drawdowns, and correlation to avoid false diversification assumptions.
- Document the thesis: Record where Legg Mason leads or lags and what catalysts could close or widen the gap.
Peer Comparison Metrics & Methodology
Peer analysis for Legg Mason uses the most recent available fundamentals rather than static annual comparisons, improving relevance as conditions evolve. EPS growth trajectory comparison for Legg Mason versus peers focuses on structural earnings expansion rather than single-quarter surprises. Income sustainability for Legg Mason looks different when placed in context against peer group payout and retention trends. Relative ranking may help frame which fundamentals deserve deeper follow-up.
Data shown for Legg Mason Partners is aggregated from fund disclosures and market reference feeds and normalized across reporting formats. Source publication cadence can introduce delays.