PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GLOF vs. INKM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GLOF vs. INKM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF) and SPDR SSgA Income Allocation ETF (INKM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLOF achieves a 13.19% return, which is significantly higher than INKM's 5.61% return. Over the past 10 years, GLOF has outperformed INKM with an annualized return of 12.29%, while INKM has yielded a comparatively lower 5.59% annualized return.


GLOF

1D
-0.77%
1M
5.15%
YTD
13.19%
6M
14.18%
1Y
30.42%
3Y*
22.67%
5Y*
11.56%
10Y*
12.29%

INKM

1D
-0.29%
1M
0.93%
YTD
5.61%
6M
5.74%
1Y
13.00%
3Y*
10.04%
5Y*
3.96%
10Y*
5.59%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GLOF vs. INKM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
GLOF
iShares Global Equity Factor ETF
13.19%23.92%17.49%22.38%-16.97%18.68%10.00%23.21%-13.70%29.86%
INKM
SPDR SSgA Income Allocation ETF
5.61%11.86%5.70%10.26%-12.58%8.52%3.11%17.12%-5.32%13.95%

Correlation

The correlation between GLOF and INKM is 0.71, 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

0.71

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.69

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.74

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.72

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2015

0.69

The correlation between GLOF and INKM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

GLOF vs. INKM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
GLOF
INKM

Technology

28.8%
13.2%

Financial Services

16.7%
8.3%

Consumer Cyclical

10.7%
5.1%

Industrials

9.3%
14.6%

Communication Services

8.7%
6.2%

Healthcare

8.2%
6.8%

Consumer Defensive

5.7%
8.6%

Energy

4.4%
11.1%

Basic Materials

3.3%
1.4%

Utilities

3.1%
13.9%

Real Estate

1.1%
10.9%

Technology

GLOF
28.8%
INKM
13.2%

Financial Services

GLOF
16.7%
INKM
8.3%

Consumer Cyclical

GLOF
10.7%
INKM
5.1%

Industrials

GLOF
9.3%
INKM
14.6%

Communication Services

GLOF
8.7%
INKM
6.2%

Healthcare

GLOF
8.2%
INKM
6.8%

Consumer Defensive

GLOF
5.7%
INKM
8.6%

Energy

GLOF
4.4%
INKM
11.1%

Basic Materials

GLOF
3.3%
INKM
1.4%

Utilities

GLOF
3.1%
INKM
13.9%

Real Estate

GLOF
1.1%
INKM
10.9%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

GLOF vs. INKM — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLOF
GLOF Risk / Return Rank: 7373
Overall Rank
GLOF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7474
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GLOF Sortino Ratio Rank: 7575
Sortino Ratio Rank
GLOF Omega Ratio Rank: 7171
Omega Ratio Rank
GLOF Calmar Ratio Rank: 6767
Calmar Ratio Rank
GLOF Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
Martin Ratio Rank

INKM
INKM Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
INKM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
INKM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6868
Sortino Ratio Rank
INKM Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
INKM Calmar Ratio Rank: 5858
Calmar Ratio Rank
INKM Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

GLOF vs. INKM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF) and SPDR SSgA Income Allocation ETF (INKM). 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.


GLOFINKMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.24

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.30

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.42

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.38

2.87

+0.51

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.08

11.30

+3.78

GLOF vs. INKM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLOF Sharpe Ratio is 2.43, which is comparable to the INKM Sharpe Ratio of 2.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLOF and INKM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


GLOFINKMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.43

2.20

+0.24

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.74

0.48

+0.26

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.72

0.57

+0.14

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.60

0.57

+0.02

Drawdowns

GLOF vs. INKM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLOF drawdown since its inception was -34.12%, which is greater than INKM's maximum drawdown of -28.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLOF and INKM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GLOFINKMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.12%

-28.58%

-5.54%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.05%

-4.55%

-4.50%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.12%

-9.25%

-6.87%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.15%

-19.18%

-5.97%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.12%

-28.58%

-5.54%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.77%

-0.33%

-0.44%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.12%

-3.69%

-2.43%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.02%

1.15%

+0.87%

Volatility

GLOF vs. INKM - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF) has a higher volatility of 3.65% compared to SPDR SSgA Income Allocation ETF (INKM) at 1.67%. This indicates that GLOF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than INKM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GLOFINKMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.65%

1.67%

+1.98%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.10%

4.59%

+5.51%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.57%

5.95%

+6.62%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.69%

8.30%

+7.39%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.17%

9.78%

+7.39%

GLOF vs. INKM - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLOF has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than INKM's 0.50% expense ratio.


Dividends

GLOF vs. INKM - Dividend Comparison

GLOF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.50%, less than INKM's 4.86% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
GLOF
iShares Global Equity Factor ETF
1.50%1.70%2.59%2.51%2.53%1.90%1.73%2.41%2.03%1.94%1.94%0.92%
INKM
SPDR SSgA Income Allocation ETF
4.86%5.82%4.83%4.56%5.03%3.74%3.88%4.38%4.08%3.10%3.39%3.45%

Frequently Asked Questions


GLOF and INKM have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GLOF has higher volatility (3.65%) compared to INKM (1.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLOF dropped -34.12% vs INKM's -28.58%.

On 10-year performance, GLOF leads with 12.29% vs 5.59% for INKM. On fees, GLOF is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, INKM has been the lower-risk option at 1.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, GLOF has performed better with a 12.29% return vs 5.59%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

GLOF is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for INKM.

INKM has the higher dividend yield at 4.86%, compared with 1.50% for GLOF.

They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for GLOF and 0.50% for INKM.

GLOF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.43 vs 2.20), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GLOF and INKM

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer