EFAS vs. PATN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EFAS (Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF) and PATN (Pacer Nasdaq International Patent Leaders ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds - EFAS tracks the MSCI EAFE Top 50 Dividend Index while PATN tracks the Nasdaq International Patent Leaders Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, EFAS returned 28.68% vs 73.16% for PATN. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EFAS charges 0.56%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for PATN.

Performance

EFAS vs. PATN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) and Pacer Nasdaq International Patent Leaders ETF (PATN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EFAS achieves a 12.96% return, which is significantly lower than PATN's 40.52% return.

EFAS

• 1D: -0.58%
• 1M: -0.80%
• YTD: 12.96%
• 6M: 17.29%
• 1Y: 28.68%
• 3Y*: 24.47%
• 5Y*: 12.04%
• 10Y*: —

PATN

• 1D: -0.39%
• 1M: 16.77%
• YTD: 40.52%
• 6M: 44.04%
• 1Y: 73.16%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EFAS vs. PATN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	12.96%	46.83%	-8.22%
PATN Pacer Nasdaq International Patent Leaders ETF	40.52%	40.01%	-1.73%

Correlation

The correlation between EFAS and PATN is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 18, 2024	0.49

EFAS vs. PATN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EFAS	PATN
Financial Services	30.1%	0.8%
Utilities	14.4%	-
Energy	13.7%	2.1%
Real Estate	11.3%	-
Industrials	9.9%	16.4%
Communication Services	8.6%	8.4%
Consumer Defensive	8.1%	6.3%
Consumer Cyclical	1.9%	9.0%
Basic Materials	1.8%	2.9%
Healthcare	0.1%	12.5%
Technology	0.1%	41.1%

Return for Risk

EFAS vs. PATN — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

EFAS

EFAS Risk / Return Rank: 81
EFAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
EFAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
EFAS Omega Ratio Rank: 78
EFAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
EFAS Martin Ratio Rank: 75

PATN

PATN Risk / Return Rank: 91
PATN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
PATN Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
PATN Omega Ratio Rank: 91
PATN Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
PATN Martin Ratio Rank: 90

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

EFAS vs. PATN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) and Pacer Nasdaq International Patent Leaders ETF (PATN). 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.

	EFAS	PATN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.73	3.47	-0.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.83	4.35	-0.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.60	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.44	5.11	+0.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.48	20.70	-6.22
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EFAS vs. PATN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFAS Sharpe Ratio is 2.73, which is comparable to the PATN Sharpe Ratio of 3.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFAS and PATN, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EFAS	PATN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.73	3.47	-0.75
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.78	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.56	2.28	-1.72

Drawdowns

EFAS vs. PATN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFAS drawdown since its inception was -44.38%, which is greater than PATN's maximum drawdown of -16.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFAS and PATN.

Drawdown Indicators

	EFAS	PATN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.38%	-16.77%	-27.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.30%	-14.40%	+9.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.84%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.81%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.01%	-0.39%	-2.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.08%	-3.15%	-3.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.99%	3.55%	-1.56%

Volatility

EFAS vs. PATN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) is 2.96%, while Pacer Nasdaq International Patent Leaders ETF (PATN) has a volatility of 8.84%. This indicates that EFAS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PATN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EFAS	PATN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.96%	8.84%	-5.88%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.20%	18.16%	-9.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.60%	21.18%	-10.58%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.59%	20.85%	-5.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.33%	20.85%	-2.52%

EFAS vs. PATN - Expense Ratio Comparison

EFAS has a 0.56% expense ratio, which is lower than PATN's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

EFAS vs. PATN - Dividend Comparison

EFAS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.05%, more than PATN's 1.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	5.05%	4.83%	6.76%	6.33%	7.28%	5.19%	4.34%	5.75%	6.63%	6.15%	0.21%
PATN Pacer Nasdaq International Patent Leaders ETF	1.60%	2.25%	0.30%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EFAS and PATN in my portfolio?

EFAS and PATN have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EFAS or PATN?

PATN has higher volatility (8.84%) compared to EFAS (2.96%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFAS dropped -44.38% vs PATN's -16.77%.

Which ETF is better, EFAS or PATN?

On 1-year performance, PATN leads with 73.16% vs 28.68% for EFAS. On fees, EFAS is cheaper at 0.56% per year. On volatility, EFAS has been the lower-risk option at 2.96%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EFAS or PATN?

Over the 1-year period, PATN has performed better with a 73.16% return vs 28.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EFAS or PATN?

EFAS is cheaper with a 0.56% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for PATN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EFAS or PATN?

EFAS has the higher dividend yield at 5.05%, compared with 1.60% for PATN.

What is the main difference between EFAS and PATN?

EFAS tracks MSCI EAFE Top 50 Dividend Index, while PATN tracks Nasdaq International Patent Leaders Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.56% for EFAS and 0.65% for PATN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PATN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.47 vs 2.73), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.