EFG vs. PATN

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

EFG (iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF) and PATN (Pacer Nasdaq International Patent Leaders ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds - EFG tracks the MSCI EAFE Growth Index while PATN tracks the Nasdaq International Patent Leaders Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, EFG returned 14.70% vs 69.98% for PATN. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EFG charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for PATN.

Performance

EFG vs. PATN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF (EFG) 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, EFG achieves a 8.93% return, which is significantly lower than PATN's 39.41% return.

EFG

• 1D: 0.94%
• 1M: 3.79%
• YTD: 8.93%
• 6M: 9.83%
• 1Y: 14.70%
• 3Y*: 11.46%
• 5Y*: 4.43%
• 10Y*: 8.02%

PATN

• 1D: -0.79%
• 1M: 13.15%
• YTD: 39.41%
• 6M: 41.84%
• 1Y: 69.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EFG vs. PATN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EFG iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF	8.93%	20.70%	-6.66%
PATN Pacer Nasdaq International Patent Leaders ETF	39.41%	40.01%	-1.73%

Correlation

The correlation between EFG and PATN is 0.88, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 18, 2024	0.88

The correlation between EFG and PATN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

EFG vs. PATN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EFG	PATN
Industrials	29.6%	16.4%
Technology	18.1%	41.1%
Healthcare	14.2%	12.5%
Consumer Cyclical	10.7%	9.0%
Financial Services	10.6%	0.8%
Consumer Defensive	5.1%	6.3%
Communication Services	4.8%	8.4%
Basic Materials	4.6%	2.9%
Utilities	1.1%	-
Real Estate	1.0%	-
Energy	0.2%	2.1%

Return for Risk

EFG vs. PATN — Risk / Return Rank

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

EFG

EFG Risk / Return Rank: 26
EFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
EFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
EFG Omega Ratio Rank: 24
EFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
EFG Martin Ratio Rank: 30

PATN

PATN Risk / Return Rank: 90
PATN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
PATN Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
PATN Omega Ratio Rank: 91
PATN Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
PATN Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

EFG vs. PATN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF (EFG) 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.

	EFG	PATN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.86	3.32	-2.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.34	4.20	-2.86
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.58	-0.42
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.15	4.89	-3.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.26	19.80	-15.54
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EFG vs. PATN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFG Sharpe Ratio is 0.86, which is lower than the PATN Sharpe Ratio of 3.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFG 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

	EFG	PATN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.86	3.32	-2.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.25	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.45	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.29	2.24	-1.95

Drawdowns

EFG vs. PATN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFG drawdown since its inception was -58.40%, which is greater than PATN's maximum drawdown of -16.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFG and PATN.

Drawdown Indicators

	EFG	PATN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.40%	-16.77%	-41.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.78%	-14.40%	+1.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.87%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.78%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.78%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.18%	+1.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.15%	-3.14%	-9.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.46%	3.55%	-0.09%

Volatility

EFG vs. PATN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF (EFG) is 5.72%, while Pacer Nasdaq International Patent Leaders ETF (PATN) has a volatility of 8.79%. This indicates that EFG 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

	EFG	PATN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.72%	8.79%	-3.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.38%	18.19%	-3.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.08%	21.20%	-4.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.11%	20.84%	-2.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.69%	20.84%	-3.15%

EFG vs. PATN - Expense Ratio Comparison

EFG has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than PATN's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

EFG vs. PATN - Dividend Comparison

EFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.32%, more than PATN's 1.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EFG iShares MSCI EAFE Growth ETF	2.32%	2.53%	1.64%	1.63%	1.27%	1.54%	0.85%	1.69%	1.98%	1.56%	2.20%	1.75%
PATN Pacer Nasdaq International Patent Leaders ETF	1.74%	2.25%	0.30%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EFG and PATN in my portfolio?

EFG and PATN have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EFG or PATN?

PATN has higher volatility (8.79%) compared to EFG (5.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFG dropped -58.40% vs PATN's -16.77%.

Which ETF is better, EFG or PATN?

On 1-year performance, PATN leads with 69.98% vs 14.70% for EFG. On fees, EFG is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, EFG has been the lower-risk option at 5.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EFG or PATN?

Over the 1-year period, PATN has performed better with a 69.98% return vs 14.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EFG or PATN?

EFG is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for PATN.

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

EFG has the higher dividend yield at 2.32%, compared with 1.74% for PATN.

What is the main difference between EFG and PATN?

EFG tracks MSCI EAFE Growth Index, while PATN tracks Nasdaq International Patent Leaders Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for EFG and 0.65% for PATN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PATN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.32 vs 0.86), 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.