GGM vs. LEXI

Last updated Jul 28, 2026

GGM (GGM Macro Alignment ETF) and LEXI (Alexis Practical Tactical ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, GGM returned 16.69% vs 22.04% for LEXI. Their 0.73 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. GGM charges 0.94%/yr vs 1.00%/yr for LEXI.

Performance

GGM vs. LEXI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GGM Macro Alignment ETF (GGM) and Alexis Practical Tactical ETF (LEXI). 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 GGM having a 12.27% return and LEXI slightly lower at 12.23%.

GGM

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: 2.17%
• 6M: 8.32%
• YTD: 12.27%
• 1Y: 16.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 8.83%

LEXI

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: -0.50%
• 6M: 8.55%
• YTD: 12.23%
• 1Y: 22.04%
• 3Y*: 17.68%
• 5Y*: 10.74%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.88%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
GGM GGM Macro Alignment ETF	$2.69K	$2.86K	$17.21K
LEXI Alexis Practical Tactical ETF	$456.20K	$560.66K	$485.60K

GGM vs. LEXI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GGM GGM Macro Alignment ETF	12.27%	1.24%	4.46%	7.04%
LEXI Alexis Practical Tactical ETF	12.23%	19.23%	16.51%	10.32%

Correlation

The correlation between GGM and LEXI is 0.62, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.62
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 26, 2023	0.73

The correlation between GGM and LEXI shifts across timeframes, from 0.62 (1 year) to 0.73 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GGM vs. LEXI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GGM	LEXI
Consumer Cyclical	28.4%	8.9%
Energy	20.9%	3.1%
Technology	20.2%	31.2%
Industrials	19.9%	13.9%
Financial Services	19.7%	11.9%
Utilities	19.0%	2.2%
Basic Materials	17.9%	5.0%
Communication Services	6.0%	5.7%
Consumer Defensive	5.5%	3.4%
Healthcare	0.3%	7.4%
Real Estate	-	7.4%

Return for Risk

GGM vs. LEXI — Risk / Return Rank

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

GGM

GGM Risk / Return Rank: 60
GGM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
GGM Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
GGM Omega Ratio Rank: 59
GGM Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
GGM Martin Ratio Rank: 58

LEXI

LEXI Risk / Return Rank: 83
LEXI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
LEXI Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
LEXI Omega Ratio Rank: 82
LEXI Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
LEXI Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

GGM vs. LEXI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GGM Macro Alignment ETF (GGM) and Alexis Practical Tactical ETF (LEXI). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	GGM	LEXI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.40	1.97	-0.57
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.01	2.84	-0.83
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.35	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.22	2.73	-0.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.88	12.75	-5.87

GGM vs. LEXI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GGM Sharpe Ratio is 1.40, which is comparable to the LEXI Sharpe Ratio of 1.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GGM and LEXI, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

GGM vs. LEXI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GGM drawdown since its inception was -19.68%, smaller than the maximum LEXI drawdown of -22.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GGM and LEXI.

Drawdown Indicators

	GGM	LEXI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.68%	-22.01%	+2.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.54%	-8.12%	+0.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.94%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-22.01%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.04%	-1.74%	+1.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.04%	-5.07%	+0.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.43%	1.73%	+0.70%

Volatility

GGM vs. LEXI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for GGM Macro Alignment ETF (GGM) is 2.07%, while Alexis Practical Tactical ETF (LEXI) has a volatility of 2.36%. This indicates that GGM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LEXI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GGM	LEXI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.07%	2.36%	-0.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.19%	9.23%	-0.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.98%	11.25%	+0.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.20%	14.58%	-1.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.20%	14.55%	-1.35%

GGM vs. LEXI - Expense Ratio Comparison

GGM has a 0.94% expense ratio, which is lower than LEXI's 1.00% expense ratio.

Dividends

GGM vs. LEXI - Dividend Comparison

GGM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.40%, more than LEXI's 0.84% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GGM GGM Macro Alignment ETF	1.40%	1.57%	1.39%	0.50%	0.00%	0.00%
LEXI Alexis Practical Tactical ETF	0.84%	0.94%	2.17%	1.34%	0.95%	0.23%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GGM and LEXI in my portfolio?

GGM and LEXI have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GGM or LEXI?

LEXI has higher volatility (2.36%) compared to GGM (2.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GGM dropped -19.68% vs LEXI's -22.01%.

Which ETF is better, GGM or LEXI?

On 1-year performance, LEXI leads with 22.04% vs 16.69% for GGM. On fees, GGM is cheaper at 0.94% per year. On volatility, GGM has been the lower-risk option at 2.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GGM or LEXI?

Over the 1-year period, LEXI has performed better with a 22.04% return vs 16.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GGM or LEXI?

GGM is cheaper with a 0.94% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for LEXI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GGM or LEXI?

GGM has the higher dividend yield at 1.40%, compared with 0.84% for LEXI.

What is the main difference between GGM and LEXI?

They also come from different issuers: GGM Wealth Advisors and Alexis. Their fees differ too: 0.94% for GGM and 1.00% for LEXI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LEXI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.97 vs 1.40), 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.