GLOF vs. KLMT

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GLOF (iShares Global Equity Factor ETF) and KLMT (Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF) are both Global Equities funds - GLOF tracks the STOXX Global Equity Factor Index while KLMT tracks the MSCI ACWI Select Climate 500 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, GLOF returned 26.49% vs 25.28% for KLMT. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. GLOF charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for KLMT.

Performance

GLOF vs. KLMT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF) and Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT). 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 GLOF having a 10.82% return and KLMT slightly lower at 10.46%.

GLOF

• 1D: -2.29%
• 1M: -0.01%
• YTD: 10.82%
• 6M: 10.20%
• 1Y: 26.49%
• 3Y*: 21.52%
• 5Y*: 11.36%
• 10Y*: 12.32%

KLMT

• 1D: -1.92%
• 1M: 0.34%
• YTD: 10.46%
• 6M: 9.86%
• 1Y: 25.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GLOF vs. KLMT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GLOF iShares Global Equity Factor ETF	10.82%	23.92%	3.94%
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	10.46%	21.31%	4.94%

Correlation

The correlation between GLOF and KLMT is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2024	0.97

The correlation between GLOF and KLMT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

GLOF vs. KLMT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GLOF	KLMT
Technology	32.2%	33.8%
Financial Services	16.0%	16.2%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	8.0%
Industrials	8.8%	9.9%
Communication Services	8.4%	8.6%
Healthcare	8.0%	7.5%
Consumer Defensive	5.1%	4.7%
Energy	3.9%	3.2%
Basic Materials	3.2%	2.7%
Utilities	2.8%	1.8%
Real Estate	1.1%	2.6%

Return for Risk

GLOF vs. KLMT — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLOF

GLOF Risk / Return Rank: 65
GLOF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
GLOF Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
GLOF Omega Ratio Rank: 62
GLOF Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
GLOF Martin Ratio Rank: 72

KLMT

KLMT Risk / Return Rank: 63
KLMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
KLMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
KLMT Omega Ratio Rank: 62
KLMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
KLMT Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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. KLMT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF) 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.

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.

	GLOF	KLMT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.99	1.90	+0.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.76	2.63	+0.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.34	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.94	2.66	+0.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.72	11.28	+1.44

GLOF vs. KLMT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLOF Sharpe Ratio is 1.99, which is comparable to the KLMT Sharpe Ratio of 1.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLOF 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.

Drawdowns

GLOF vs. KLMT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLOF drawdown since its inception was -34.12%, which is greater than KLMT's maximum drawdown of -16.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLOF and KLMT.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLOF	KLMT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.12%	-16.87%	-17.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.05%	-9.54%	+0.49%
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	-2.85%	-2.18%	-0.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.09%	-1.91%	-4.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.09%	2.25%	-0.16%

Volatility

GLOF vs. KLMT - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF) and Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT) have volatilities of 5.42% and 5.40%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLOF	KLMT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.42%	5.40%	+0.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.10%	11.08%	+0.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.37%	13.40%	-0.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.81%	16.03%	-0.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.12%	16.03%	+1.09%

GLOF vs. KLMT - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLOF has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than KLMT's 0.10% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

GLOF vs. KLMT - Dividend Comparison

GLOF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.61%, less than KLMT's 1.78% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GLOF iShares Global Equity Factor ETF	1.61%	1.70%	2.59%	2.51%	2.53%	1.90%	1.73%	2.41%	2.03%	1.94%	1.94%	0.92%
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	1.78%	1.95%	0.85%	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 GLOF and KLMT in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, GLOF and KLMT 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, GLOF or KLMT?

GLOF has higher volatility (5.42%) compared to KLMT (5.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLOF dropped -34.12% vs KLMT's -16.87%.

Which ETF is better, GLOF or KLMT?

On 1-year performance, GLOF leads with 26.49% vs 25.28% for KLMT. On fees, KLMT is cheaper at 0.10% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLOF or KLMT?

Over the 1-year period, GLOF has performed better with a 26.49% return vs 25.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLOF or KLMT?

KLMT is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for GLOF.

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

KLMT has the higher dividend yield at 1.78%, compared with 1.61% for GLOF.

What is the main difference between GLOF and KLMT?

GLOF tracks STOXX Global Equity Factor Index, while KLMT tracks MSCI ACWI Select Climate 500 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for GLOF and 0.10% for KLMT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLOF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs 1.90), 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.