FDG vs. KLMT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FDG (American Century Focused Dynamic Growth ETF) and KLMT (Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF) are both Global Equities funds. FDG is actively managed, while KLMT is passively managed. Over the past year, FDG returned 31.12% vs 27.86% for KLMT. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FDG charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for KLMT.

Performance

FDG vs. KLMT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in American Century Focused Dynamic Growth ETF (FDG) and Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FDG achieves a 7.52% return, which is significantly lower than KLMT's 12.04% return.

FDG

• 1D: -2.00%
• 1M: 3.68%
• YTD: 7.52%
• 6M: 9.17%
• 1Y: 31.12%
• 3Y*: 29.27%
• 5Y*: 12.61%
• 10Y*: —

KLMT

• 1D: -0.78%
• 1M: 5.23%
• YTD: 12.04%
• 6M: 12.88%
• 1Y: 27.86%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FDG vs. KLMT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FDG American Century Focused Dynamic Growth ETF	7.52%	22.13%	15.52%
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	12.04%	21.31%	4.94%

Correlation

The correlation between FDG and KLMT is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2024	0.82

The correlation between FDG and KLMT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

FDG vs. KLMT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDG	KLMT
Technology	37.7%	30.0%
Communication Services	21.5%	9.6%
Consumer Cyclical	17.1%	9.2%
Healthcare	13.2%	8.0%
Industrials	5.2%	10.2%
Financial Services	4.7%	16.9%
Energy	0.6%	4.1%
Utilities	0.1%	2.0%
Basic Materials	-	2.8%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.6%
Real Estate	-	2.7%

Return for Risk

FDG vs. KLMT — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDG

FDG Risk / Return Rank: 46
FDG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
FDG Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
FDG Omega Ratio Rank: 47
FDG Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
FDG Martin Ratio Rank: 43

KLMT

KLMT Risk / Return Rank: 67
KLMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
KLMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
KLMT Omega Ratio Rank: 67
KLMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
KLMT Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

FDG vs. KLMT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for American Century Focused Dynamic Growth ETF (FDG) and Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT). 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.

	FDG	KLMT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.76	2.22	-0.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.37	3.10	-0.73
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.40	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.99	2.93	-0.94
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.02	12.75	-5.73
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FDG vs. KLMT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDG Sharpe Ratio is 1.76, which is comparable to the KLMT Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDG and KLMT, 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

	FDG	KLMT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.76	2.22	-0.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.92	1.28	-0.36

Drawdowns

FDG vs. KLMT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDG drawdown since its inception was -43.69%, which is greater than KLMT's maximum drawdown of -16.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDG and KLMT.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDG	KLMT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.69%	-16.87%	-26.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.71%	-9.54%	-6.17%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.14%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-43.69%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.13%	-0.78%	-2.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.43%	-1.91%	-11.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.45%	2.19%	+2.26%

Volatility

FDG vs. KLMT - Volatility Comparison

American Century Focused Dynamic Growth ETF (FDG) has a higher volatility of 5.18% compared to Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT) at 3.76%. This indicates that FDG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than KLMT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDG	KLMT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.18%	3.76%	+1.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.03%	10.07%	+3.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.77%	12.61%	+5.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.67%	15.85%	+8.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.90%	15.85%	+9.05%

FDG vs. KLMT - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDG has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than KLMT's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDG vs. KLMT - Dividend Comparison

FDG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while KLMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FDG American Century Focused Dynamic Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	1.75%	1.95%	0.85%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDG and KLMT in my portfolio?

FDG and KLMT have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FDG or KLMT?

FDG has higher volatility (5.18%) compared to KLMT (3.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDG dropped -43.69% vs KLMT's -16.87%.

Which ETF is better, FDG or KLMT?

On 1-year performance, FDG leads with 31.12% vs 27.86% for KLMT. On fees, KLMT is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, KLMT has been the lower-risk option at 3.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDG or KLMT?

Over the 1-year period, FDG has performed better with a 31.12% return vs 27.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDG or KLMT?

KLMT is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for FDG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FDG or KLMT?

KLMT has the higher dividend yield at 1.75%, compared with 0.00% for FDG.

What is the main difference between FDG and KLMT?

They also come from different issuers: American Century and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for FDG and 0.10% for KLMT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KLMT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 vs 1.76), 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.