GLCR vs. EWP

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GLCR (GlacierShares Nasdaq Iceland ETF) and EWP (iShares MSCI Spain ETF) are both Europe Equities funds - GLCR tracks the MarketVector Iceland Global Total Return Net Index while EWP tracks the MSCI Spain Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, GLCR returned -6.76% vs 41.28% for EWP. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLCR charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for EWP.

Performance

GLCR vs. EWP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GlacierShares Nasdaq Iceland ETF (GLCR) and iShares MSCI Spain ETF (EWP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLCR achieves a -12.59% return, which is significantly lower than EWP's 11.25% return.

GLCR

• 1D: -0.79%
• 1M: -11.61%
• YTD: -12.59%
• 6M: -11.75%
• 1Y: -6.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EWP

• 1D: -0.72%
• 1M: 6.13%
• YTD: 11.25%
• 6M: 11.48%
• 1Y: 41.28%
• 3Y*: 33.03%
• 5Y*: 18.75%
• 10Y*: 13.42%

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

GLCR vs. EWP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GLCR GlacierShares Nasdaq Iceland ETF	-12.59%	7.26%
EWP iShares MSCI Spain ETF	11.25%	44.44%

Correlation

The correlation between GLCR and EWP is 0.52, 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	0.52
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2025	0.49

The correlation between GLCR and EWP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.49 to 0.52 - a consistent structural relationship.

GLCR vs. EWP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GLCR	EWP
Financial Services	33.1%	42.4%
Consumer Defensive	21.5%	-
Healthcare	18.6%	1.3%
Real Estate	7.9%	2.8%
Industrials	6.4%	16.3%
Consumer Cyclical	5.7%	4.6%
Basic Materials	5.4%	-
Communication Services	1.5%	2.8%
Energy	-	4.1%
Technology	-	5.6%
Utilities	-	21.4%

Return for Risk

GLCR vs. EWP — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLCR

GLCR Risk / Return Rank: 5
GLCR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
GLCR Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
GLCR Omega Ratio Rank: 5
GLCR Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
GLCR Martin Ratio Rank: 5

EWP

EWP Risk / Return Rank: 71
EWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
EWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
EWP Omega Ratio Rank: 67
EWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
EWP Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

GLCR vs. EWP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GlacierShares Nasdaq Iceland ETF (GLCR) and iShares MSCI Spain ETF (EWP). 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.

	GLCR	EWP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.41	2.21	-2.61
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.44	2.94	-3.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.94	1.38	-0.44
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.36	3.64	-4.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.94	12.92	-13.86

GLCR vs. EWP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLCR Sharpe Ratio is -0.41, which is lower than the EWP Sharpe Ratio of 2.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLCR and EWP, 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

GLCR vs. EWP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLCR drawdown since its inception was -18.74%, smaller than the maximum EWP drawdown of -61.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLCR and EWP.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLCR	EWP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.74%	-61.19%	+42.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.74%	-11.38%	-7.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-12.19%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-31.63%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-46.36%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.74%	-0.72%	-18.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.15%	-21.40%	+16.25%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.18%	3.20%	+3.98%

Volatility

GLCR vs. EWP - Volatility Comparison

GlacierShares Nasdaq Iceland ETF (GLCR) has a higher volatility of 8.06% compared to iShares MSCI Spain ETF (EWP) at 5.49%. This indicates that GLCR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EWP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLCR	EWP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.06%	5.49%	+2.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.41%	16.07%	-2.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.77%	18.81%	-2.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.57%	20.29%	-1.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.57%	21.56%	-2.99%

GLCR vs. EWP - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLCR has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than EWP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLCR vs. EWP - Dividend Comparison

GLCR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.11%, less than EWP's 2.82% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EWP iShares MSCI Spain ETF	2.82%	2.27%	4.35%	2.70%	3.07%	3.29%	2.56%	3.72%	3.69%	2.72%	4.65%	3.85%
GLCR GlacierShares Nasdaq Iceland ETF	1.11%	0.97%	0.00%	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 GLCR and EWP in my portfolio?

GLCR and EWP have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GLCR or EWP?

GLCR has higher volatility (8.06%) compared to EWP (5.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLCR dropped -18.74% vs EWP's -61.19%.

Which ETF is better, GLCR or EWP?

On 1-year performance, EWP leads with 41.28% vs -6.76% for GLCR. On fees, EWP is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, EWP has been the lower-risk option at 5.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLCR or EWP?

Over the 1-year period, EWP has performed better with a 41.28% return vs -6.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLCR or EWP?

EWP is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for GLCR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GLCR or EWP?

EWP has the higher dividend yield at 2.82%, compared with 1.11% for GLCR.

What is the main difference between GLCR and EWP?

GLCR tracks MarketVector Iceland Global Total Return Net Index, while EWP tracks MSCI Spain Index. They also come from different issuers: Teucrium and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for GLCR and 0.50% for EWP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EWP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.21 vs -0.41), 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.