ELM vs. ONOF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ELM (Elm Market Navigator ETF) and ONOF (Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. ELM is actively managed, while ONOF is passively managed. Over the past year, ELM returned 19.85% vs 23.60% for ONOF. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ELM charges 0.24%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for ONOF.

Performance

ELM vs. ONOF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM) and Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF (ONOF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with ELM having a 7.56% return and ONOF slightly lower at 7.32%.

ELM

• 1D: -0.58%
• 1M: 2.88%
• YTD: 7.56%
• 6M: 8.51%
• 1Y: 19.85%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ONOF

• 1D: -0.68%
• 1M: 5.26%
• YTD: 7.32%
• 6M: 7.29%
• 1Y: 23.60%
• 3Y*: 13.72%
• 5Y*: 9.34%
• 10Y*: —

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

ELM vs. ONOF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ELM Elm Market Navigator ETF	7.56%	11.89%
ONOF Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF	7.32%	5.05%

Correlation

The correlation between ELM and ONOF is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 12, 2025	0.75

The correlation between ELM and ONOF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

ELM vs. ONOF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ELM	ONOF
Technology	22.0%	35.6%
Financial Services	18.3%	11.5%
Industrials	12.6%	8.3%
Consumer Cyclical	9.1%	10.1%
Healthcare	8.3%	8.6%
Communication Services	6.6%	11.6%
Basic Materials	5.4%	1.8%
Consumer Defensive	5.2%	4.8%
Energy	4.8%	3.6%
Real Estate	4.7%	1.8%
Utilities	3.0%	2.3%

Return for Risk

ELM vs. ONOF — Risk / Return Rank

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

ELM

ELM Risk / Return Rank: 63
ELM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
ELM Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
ELM Omega Ratio Rank: 67
ELM Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
ELM Martin Ratio Rank: 62

ONOF

ONOF Risk / Return Rank: 64
ONOF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
ONOF Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
ONOF Omega Ratio Rank: 61
ONOF Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
ONOF Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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.

ELM vs. ONOF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM) and Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF (ONOF). 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.

	ELM	ONOF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.13	2.11	+0.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.00	2.86	+0.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.38	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.65	3.45	-0.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.00	11.88	-0.88
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ELM vs. ONOF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ELM Sharpe Ratio is 2.13, which is comparable to the ONOF Sharpe Ratio of 2.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ELM and ONOF, 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

	ELM	ONOF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.13	2.11	+0.02
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.66	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.49	0.74	+0.75

Drawdowns

ELM vs. ONOF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ELM drawdown since its inception was -9.02%, smaller than the maximum ONOF drawdown of -26.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ELM and ONOF.

Drawdown Indicators

	ELM	ONOF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.02%	-26.21%	+17.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.52%	-6.86%	-0.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-21.67%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.21%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.58%	-0.68%	+0.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.32%	-6.15%	+4.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.81%	1.99%	-0.18%

Volatility

ELM vs. ONOF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM) is 2.59%, while Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF (ONOF) has a volatility of 3.03%. This indicates that ELM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ONOF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ELM	ONOF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.59%	3.03%	-0.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.52%	7.95%	-0.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.38%	11.25%	-1.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.27%	14.30%	-4.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.27%	14.33%	-4.06%

ELM vs. ONOF - Expense Ratio Comparison

ELM has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is lower than ONOF's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

ELM vs. ONOF - Dividend Comparison

ELM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.52%, more than ONOF's 1.29% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ELM Elm Market Navigator ETF	2.52%	2.71%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ONOF Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF	1.29%	1.38%	0.93%	1.37%	1.92%	0.69%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ELM and ONOF in my portfolio?

ELM and ONOF have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ELM or ONOF?

ONOF has higher volatility (3.03%) compared to ELM (2.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ELM dropped -9.02% vs ONOF's -26.21%.

Which ETF is better, ELM or ONOF?

On 1-year performance, ONOF leads with 23.60% vs 19.85% for ELM. On fees, ELM is cheaper at 0.24% per year. On volatility, ELM has been the lower-risk option at 2.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ELM or ONOF?

Over the 1-year period, ONOF has performed better with a 23.60% return vs 19.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ELM or ONOF?

ELM is cheaper with a 0.24% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for ONOF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ELM or ONOF?

ELM has the higher dividend yield at 2.52%, compared with 1.29% for ONOF.

What is the main difference between ELM and ONOF?

They also come from different issuers: Elm and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.24% for ELM and 0.39% for ONOF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ELM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 vs 2.11), 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.