PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
GLOF vs. RODM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

GLOF vs. RODM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GLOF (iShares Global Equity Factor ETF) and RODM (Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLOF is a Global Equities fund tracking the STOXX Global Equity Factor Index, while RODM is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the Hartford Risk-Optimized Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GLOF returned 12.32%/yr vs 9.31%/yr for RODM. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GLOF charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for RODM.

Performance

GLOF vs. RODM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF) and Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF (RODM). 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 10.82% return, which is significantly higher than RODM's 10.16% return. Over the past 10 years, GLOF has outperformed RODM with an annualized return of 12.32%, while RODM has yielded a comparatively lower 9.31% annualized return.

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%

RODM

1D
-0.71%
1M
-1.81%
YTD
10.16%
6M
9.75%
1Y
24.04%
3Y*
20.17%
5Y*
9.67%
10Y*
9.31%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GLOF vs. RODM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
GLOF
iShares Global Equity Factor ETF		10.82%23.92%17.49%22.38%-16.97%18.68%10.00%23.21%-13.70%29.86%
RODM
Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF		10.16%34.42%8.02%15.76%-14.54%11.11%-0.62%17.15%-9.97%25.14%

Correlation

The correlation between GLOF and RODM is 0.70, 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

0.70

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

0.74

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

0.81

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

0.79

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 4, 2015

0.75

The correlation between GLOF and RODM shifts across timeframes, from 0.70 (1 year) to 0.81 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GLOF vs. RODM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
GLOF
RODM

Technology

32.2%
10.5%

Financial Services

16.0%
26.6%

Consumer Cyclical

10.6%
6.0%

Industrials

8.8%
16.7%

Communication Services

8.4%
5.5%

Healthcare

8.0%
9.0%

Consumer Defensive

5.1%
4.0%

Energy

3.9%
6.3%

Basic Materials

3.2%
6.4%

Utilities

2.8%
4.8%

Real Estate

1.1%
3.5%

Technology

GLOF
32.2%
RODM
10.5%

Financial Services

GLOF
16.0%
RODM
26.6%

Consumer Cyclical

GLOF
10.6%
RODM
6.0%

Industrials

GLOF
8.8%
RODM
16.7%

Communication Services

GLOF
8.4%
RODM
5.5%

Healthcare

GLOF
8.0%
RODM
9.0%

Consumer Defensive

GLOF
5.1%
RODM
4.0%

Energy

GLOF
3.9%
RODM
6.3%

Basic Materials

GLOF
3.2%
RODM
6.4%

Utilities

GLOF
2.8%
RODM
4.8%

Real Estate

GLOF
1.1%
RODM
3.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares Global Equity Factor ETF

Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF

Often compared with GLOF:
GLOF vs. VTGLOF vs. DYNFGLOF vs. IDMOGLOF vs. STLGGLOF vs. QWLDGLOF vs. VOOGLOF vs. QINT
Often compared with RODM:
RODM vs. NSRIXRODM vs. VEARODM vs. SCHFRODM vs. VYMIRODM vs. SPMORODM vs. IVLURODM vs. ^GSPC

Return for Risk

GLOF vs. RODM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
GLOF
GLOF Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
GLOF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GLOF Sortino Ratio Rank: 6363
Sortino Ratio Rank
GLOF Omega Ratio Rank: 6262
Omega Ratio Rank
GLOF Calmar Ratio Rank: 6363
Calmar Ratio Rank
GLOF Martin Ratio Rank: 7272
Martin Ratio Rank
RODM
RODM Risk / Return Rank: 7474
Overall Rank
RODM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7474
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RODM Sortino Ratio Rank: 7575
Sortino Ratio Rank
RODM Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
RODM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7272
Calmar Ratio Rank
RODM Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
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. RODM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF) and Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF (RODM). 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.

GLOFRODMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.99
2.21

-0.22

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.76
3.12

-0.36

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.40

-0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.94

3.40

-0.46

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.72

13.45

-0.73

GLOF vs. RODM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLOF Sharpe Ratio is 1.99, which is comparable to the RODM Sharpe Ratio of 2.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLOF and RODM, 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...

Drawdowns

GLOF vs. RODM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLOF drawdown since its inception was -34.12%, smaller than the maximum RODM drawdown of -35.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLOF and RODM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

GLOFRODMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.12%

-35.98%

+1.86%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.05%

-7.10%

-1.95%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.12%

-10.58%

-5.54%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.15%

-28.85%

+3.70%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.12%

-35.98%

+1.86%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.85%

-2.16%

-0.69%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.09%

-6.36%

+0.27%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.09%

1.79%

+0.30%

Volatility

GLOF vs. RODM - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF) has a higher volatility of 5.42% compared to Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF (RODM) at 3.21%. This indicates that GLOF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RODM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

GLOFRODMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.42%

3.21%

+2.21%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.10%

8.77%

+2.33%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.37%

10.95%

+2.42%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.81%

13.45%

+2.36%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.12%

15.08%

+2.04%

GLOF vs. RODM - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLOF has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than RODM's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLOF vs. RODM - Dividend Comparison

GLOF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.61%, less than RODM's 2.82% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
RODM
Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF		2.82%3.11%4.09%4.42%3.81%4.41%2.82%2.82%2.03%2.24%3.19%2.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

GLOF and RODM have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GLOF has higher volatility (5.42%) compared to RODM (3.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLOF dropped -34.12% vs RODM's -35.98%.

On 10-year performance, GLOF leads with 12.32% vs 9.31% for RODM. On fees, GLOF is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, RODM has been the lower-risk option at 3.21%. 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 12.32% return vs 9.31%. 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 0.29% for RODM.

RODM has the higher dividend yield at 2.82%, compared with 1.61% for GLOF.

GLOF is categorized as Global Equities, while RODM is Foreign Large Cap Equities. GLOF tracks STOXX Global Equity Factor Index, while RODM tracks Hartford Risk-Optimized Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Hartford. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for GLOF and 0.29% for RODM.

RODM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.21 vs 1.99), 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 RODM

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