PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EFAS vs. RODM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EFAS vs. RODM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) and Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF (RODM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EFAS achieves a 12.96% return, which is significantly higher than RODM's 10.99% return.


EFAS

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

RODM

1D
-0.22%
1M
1.13%
YTD
10.99%
6M
14.14%
1Y
25.48%
3Y*
20.42%
5Y*
9.57%
10Y*
8.89%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EFAS vs. RODM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EFAS
Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF
12.96%46.83%3.07%14.65%-8.00%12.75%-5.42%14.60%-11.60%22.76%
RODM
Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF
10.99%34.42%8.02%15.76%-14.54%11.11%-0.62%17.15%-9.97%25.14%

Correlation

The correlation between EFAS and RODM is 0.77, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.77

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.76

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.80

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 17, 2016

0.76

The correlation between EFAS and RODM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

EFAS vs. RODM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EFAS
RODM

Financial Services

30.1%
25.9%

Utilities

14.4%
4.9%

Energy

13.7%
6.6%

Real Estate

11.3%
3.6%

Industrials

9.9%
16.7%

Communication Services

8.6%
5.5%

Consumer Defensive

8.1%
4.1%

Consumer Cyclical

1.9%
5.9%

Basic Materials

1.8%
6.3%

Healthcare

0.1%
9.1%

Technology

0.1%
10.5%

Financial Services

EFAS
30.1%
RODM
25.9%

Utilities

EFAS
14.4%
RODM
4.9%

Energy

EFAS
13.7%
RODM
6.6%

Real Estate

EFAS
11.3%
RODM
3.6%

Industrials

EFAS
9.9%
RODM
16.7%

Communication Services

EFAS
8.6%
RODM
5.5%

Consumer Defensive

EFAS
8.1%
RODM
4.1%

Consumer Cyclical

EFAS
1.9%
RODM
5.9%

Basic Materials

EFAS
1.8%
RODM
6.3%

Healthcare

EFAS
0.1%
RODM
9.1%

Technology

EFAS
0.1%
RODM
10.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

EFAS vs. RODM — Risk / Return Rank

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

EFAS
EFAS Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
EFAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EFAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
EFAS Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
EFAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
EFAS Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank

RODM
RODM Risk / Return Rank: 7373
Overall Rank
RODM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RODM Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
RODM Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
RODM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7272
Calmar Ratio Rank
RODM Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
Martin Ratio Rank
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. RODM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) and Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF (RODM). 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.


EFASRODMDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.73

2.39

+0.33

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

3.83

3.35

+0.48

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.47

1.44

+0.04

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

5.44

3.60

+1.83

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

14.48

14.50

-0.02

EFAS vs. RODM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFAS Sharpe Ratio is 2.73, which is comparable to the RODM Sharpe Ratio of 2.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFAS and RODM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


EFASRODMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.73

2.39

+0.33

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.78

0.72

+0.06

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.59

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.56

0.52

+0.05

Drawdowns

EFAS vs. RODM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFAS drawdown since its inception was -44.38%, which is greater than RODM's maximum drawdown of -35.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFAS and RODM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EFASRODMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-44.38%

-35.98%

-8.40%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.30%

-7.10%

+1.80%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-11.84%

-10.58%

-1.26%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.81%

-28.85%

+0.04%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.98%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.01%

-1.42%

-1.59%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.08%

-6.38%

-0.70%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.99%

1.76%

+0.23%

Volatility

EFAS vs. RODM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) is 2.96%, while Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF (RODM) has a volatility of 3.12%. This indicates that EFAS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RODM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EFASRODMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.96%

3.12%

-0.16%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.20%

8.41%

-0.21%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.60%

10.74%

-0.14%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.59%

13.43%

+2.16%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.33%

15.24%

+3.09%

EFAS vs. RODM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EFAS has a 0.56% expense ratio, which is higher than RODM's 0.29% expense ratio.


Dividends

EFAS vs. RODM - Dividend Comparison

EFAS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.05%, more than RODM's 2.80% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%0.00%
RODM
Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF
2.80%3.11%4.09%4.42%3.81%4.41%2.82%2.82%2.03%2.24%3.19%2.60%

Frequently Asked Questions


EFAS and RODM have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

RODM has higher volatility (3.12%) compared to EFAS (2.96%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFAS dropped -44.38% vs RODM's -35.98%.

On 5-year performance, EFAS leads with 12.04% vs 9.57% for RODM. On fees, RODM is cheaper at 0.29% 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.

Over the 5-year period, EFAS has performed better with a 12.04% return vs 9.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RODM is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for EFAS.

EFAS has the higher dividend yield at 5.05%, compared with 2.80% for RODM.

EFAS tracks MSCI EAFE Top 50 Dividend Index, while RODM tracks Hartford Risk-Optimized Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Hartford. Their fees differ too: 0.56% for EFAS and 0.29% for RODM.

EFAS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.73 vs 2.39), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EFAS and RODM

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer