BLUC vs. GXLC

Last updated Aug 6, 2026

BLUC (Bluemonte Large Cap Core ETF) and GXLC (Global X U.S. 500 ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. BLUC is actively managed, while GXLC is passively managed. Their 0.99 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. BLUC charges 0.23%/yr vs 0.02%/yr for GXLC.

Performance

BLUC vs. GXLC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bluemonte Large Cap Core ETF (BLUC) and Global X U.S. 500 ETF (GXLC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BLUC achieves a 11.99% return, which is significantly lower than GXLC's 13.47% return.

BLUC

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: 2.33%
• 6M: 12.99%
• YTD: 11.99%
• 1Y: 21.94%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 25.12%

GXLC

• 1D: -0.10%
• 1M: 2.41%
• 6M: 13.22%
• YTD: 13.47%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BLUC Bluemonte Large Cap Core ETF	$691.35K	$726.25K	$1.13M
GXLC Global X U.S. 500 ETF	$13.68K	$22.15K	$18.83K

BLUC vs. GXLC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BLUC Bluemonte Large Cap Core ETF	11.99%	2.78%
GXLC Global X U.S. 500 ETF	13.47%	3.22%

Correlation

The correlation between BLUC and GXLC is 0.99 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 24, 2025	0.99

Return for Risk

BLUC vs. GXLC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BLUC

BLUC Risk / Return Rank: 54
BLUC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
BLUC Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
BLUC Omega Ratio Rank: 53
BLUC Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
BLUC Martin Ratio Rank: 57

GXLC

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BLUC vs. GXLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bluemonte Large Cap Core ETF (BLUC) and Global X U.S. 500 ETF (GXLC). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	BLUC	GXLC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.57	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.18	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.06	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.77	—	—

Drawdowns

BLUC vs. GXLC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BLUC drawdown since its inception was -10.69%, which is greater than GXLC's maximum drawdown of -9.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BLUC and GXLC.

Drawdown Indicators

	BLUC	GXLC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.69%	-9.08%	-1.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.69%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.28%	-0.10%	-0.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.76%	-1.56%	-0.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.83%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BLUC	GXLC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.60%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.38%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.09%	13.71%	+0.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.68%	13.71%	-0.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.68%	13.71%	-0.03%

BLUC vs. GXLC - Expense Ratio Comparison

BLUC has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is higher than GXLC's 0.02% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

BLUC vs. GXLC - Dividend Comparison

BLUC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.61%, less than GXLC's 0.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
BLUC Bluemonte Large Cap Core ETF	0.61%	0.46%
GXLC Global X U.S. 500 ETF	0.88%	0.30%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BLUC and GXLC in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.99, BLUC and GXLC move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, BLUC or GXLC?

On fees, GXLC is cheaper at 0.02% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BLUC or GXLC?

GXLC is cheaper with a 0.02% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for BLUC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BLUC or GXLC?

GXLC has the higher dividend yield at 0.88%, compared with 0.61% for BLUC.

What is the main difference between BLUC and GXLC?

They also come from different issuers: Bluemonte and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for BLUC and 0.02% for GXLC.