GLBL vs. GLOF

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

GLBL (Pacer MSCI World Industry Advantage ETF) and GLOF (iShares Global Equity Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds - GLBL tracks the MSCI World Ricardo Comparative Advantage Select Index while GLOF tracks the STOXX Global Equity Factor Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, GLBL returned 23.47% vs 23.43% for GLOF. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GLBL charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for GLOF.

Performance

GLBL vs. GLOF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer MSCI World Industry Advantage ETF (GLBL) and iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLBL achieves a 11.04% return, which is significantly lower than GLOF's 12.10% return.

GLBL

• 1D: -0.45%
• 1M: 1.13%
• 6M: 8.55%
• YTD: 11.04%
• 1Y: 23.47%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GLOF

• 1D: -1.04%
• 1M: 0.09%
• 6M: 9.28%
• YTD: 12.10%
• 1Y: 23.43%
• 3Y*: 20.33%
• 5Y*: 11.51%
• 10Y*: 11.98%

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

GLBL vs. GLOF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GLBL Pacer MSCI World Industry Advantage ETF	11.04%	20.14%	5.49%
GLOF iShares Global Equity Factor ETF	12.10%	23.92%	0.89%

Correlation

The correlation between GLBL and GLOF is 0.92, 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	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 17, 2024	0.91

The correlation between GLBL and GLOF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

GLBL vs. GLOF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GLBL	GLOF
Technology	44.5%	32.2%
Communication Services	13.7%	8.4%
Financial Services	12.6%	16.0%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	10.6%
Healthcare	6.3%	8.0%
Consumer Defensive	3.7%	5.1%
Industrials	3.0%	8.8%
Real Estate	2.9%	1.1%
Energy	1.3%	3.9%
Basic Materials	1.0%	3.2%
Utilities	0.4%	2.8%

Return for Risk

GLBL vs. GLOF — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLBL

GLBL Risk / Return Rank: 59
GLBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
GLBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
GLBL Omega Ratio Rank: 60
GLBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
GLBL Martin Ratio Rank: 59

GLOF

GLOF Risk / Return Rank: 69
GLOF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
GLOF Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
GLOF Omega Ratio Rank: 66
GLOF Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
GLOF Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

GLBL vs. GLOF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer MSCI World Industry Advantage ETF (GLBL) and iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF). 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.

	GLBL	GLOF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.63	1.76	-0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.23	2.47	-0.24
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.31	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.15	2.60	-0.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.18	11.01	-2.83

GLBL vs. GLOF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLBL Sharpe Ratio is 1.63, which is comparable to the GLOF Sharpe Ratio of 1.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLBL and GLOF, 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

GLBL vs. GLOF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLBL drawdown since its inception was -19.75%, smaller than the maximum GLOF drawdown of -34.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLBL and GLOF.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLBL	GLOF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.75%	-34.12%	+14.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.97%	-9.05%	-1.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.12%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.15%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.45%	-1.72%	-0.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.60%	-6.07%	+3.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.88%	2.13%	+0.75%

Volatility

GLBL vs. GLOF - Volatility Comparison

Pacer MSCI World Industry Advantage ETF (GLBL) has a higher volatility of 5.01% compared to iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF) at 4.51%. This indicates that GLBL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GLOF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLBL	GLOF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.01%	4.51%	+0.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.72%	11.20%	+0.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.47%	13.39%	+1.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.65%	15.81%	+0.84%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.65%	17.08%	-0.43%

GLBL vs. GLOF - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLBL has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than GLOF's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLBL vs. GLOF - Dividend Comparison

GLBL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.77%, less than GLOF's 1.59% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GLBL Pacer MSCI World Industry Advantage ETF	0.77%	0.86%	0.15%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GLOF iShares Global Equity Factor ETF	1.59%	1.70%	2.59%	2.51%	2.53%	1.90%	1.73%	2.41%	2.03%	1.94%	1.94%	0.92%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLBL and GLOF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, GLBL and GLOF move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, GLBL or GLOF?

GLBL has higher volatility (5.01%) compared to GLOF (4.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLBL dropped -19.75% vs GLOF's -34.12%.

Which ETF is better, GLBL or GLOF?

On 1-year performance, GLBL leads with 23.47% vs 23.43% for GLOF. On fees, GLOF is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, GLOF has been the lower-risk option at 4.51%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLBL or GLOF?

Over the 1-year period, GLBL has performed better with a 23.47% return vs 23.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLBL or GLOF?

GLOF is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for GLBL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GLBL or GLOF?

GLOF has the higher dividend yield at 1.59%, compared with 0.77% for GLBL.

What is the main difference between GLBL and GLOF?

GLBL tracks MSCI World Ricardo Comparative Advantage Select Index, while GLOF tracks STOXX Global Equity Factor Index. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for GLBL and 0.20% for GLOF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLOF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.76 vs 1.63), 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.