GLOF vs. VT
GLOF (iShares Global Equity Factor ETF) and VT (Vanguard Total World Stock ETF) are both Global Equities funds - GLOF tracks the STOXX Global Equity Factor Index while VT tracks the FTSE Global All Cap Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GLOF returned 12.32%/yr vs 12.96%/yr for VT. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GLOF charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.06%/yr for VT.
Performance
GLOF vs. VT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GLOF achieves a 10.82% return, which is significantly higher than VT's 10.06% return. Over the past 10 years, GLOF has underperformed VT with an annualized return of 12.32%, while VT has yielded a comparatively higher 12.96% 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%
VT
- 1D
- -2.05%
- 1M
- -0.44%
- YTD
- 10.06%
- 6M
- 9.32%
- 1Y
- 25.71%
- 3Y*
- 19.92%
- 5Y*
- 10.51%
- 10Y*
- 12.96%
GLOF vs. VT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
VT Vanguard Total World Stock ETF | 10.06% | 22.43% | 16.49% | 22.02% | -18.00% | 18.27% | 16.59% | 26.81% | -9.76% | 24.50% |
Correlation
The correlation between GLOF and VT is 0.97 - 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 | 0.97 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.98 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.97 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.92 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 4, 2015 | 0.88 |
The correlation between GLOF and VT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.
GLOF vs. VT - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
GLOF
VT
Technology
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Communication Services
Healthcare
Consumer Defensive
Energy
Basic Materials
Utilities
Real Estate
Technology
GLOF
VT
Financial Services
GLOF
VT
Consumer Cyclical
GLOF
VT
Industrials
GLOF
VT
Communication Services
GLOF
VT
Healthcare
GLOF
VT
Consumer Defensive
GLOF
VT
Energy
GLOF
VT
Basic Materials
GLOF
VT
Utilities
GLOF
VT
Real Estate
GLOF
VT
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. VT — Risk / Return Rank
GLOF
VT
GLOF vs. VT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF) and Vanguard Total World Stock ETF (VT). 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 | VT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.09 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.14 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.36 | 1.35 | +0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.94 | 2.67 | +0.27 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.72 | 11.57 | +1.15 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GLOF vs. VT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GLOF drawdown since its inception was -34.12%, smaller than the maximum VT drawdown of -50.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLOF and VT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GLOF | VT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -34.12% | -50.27% | +16.15% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.05% | -9.67% | +0.62% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.12% | -16.51% | +0.39% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.15% | -26.38% | +1.23% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -34.12% | -34.24% | +0.12% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.85% | -2.80% | -0.05% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.09% | -7.00% | +0.91% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.09% | 2.23% | -0.14% |
Volatility
GLOF vs. VT - Volatility Comparison
iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF) and Vanguard Total World Stock ETF (VT) have volatilities of 5.42% and 5.65%, 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GLOF | VT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.42% | 5.65% | -0.23% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.10% | 11.32% | -0.22% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.37% | 13.58% | -0.21% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.81% | 16.19% | -0.38% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.12% | 17.20% | -0.08% |
GLOF vs. VT - Expense Ratio Comparison
GLOF has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than VT's 0.06% 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. VT - Dividend Comparison
GLOF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.61%, which matches VT's 1.61% 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% |
VT Vanguard Total World Stock ETF | 1.61% | 1.82% | 1.95% | 2.08% | 2.20% | 1.82% | 1.66% | 2.32% | 2.53% | 2.11% | 2.39% | 2.45% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.97, GLOF and VT 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.
VT has higher volatility (5.65%) compared to GLOF (5.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLOF dropped -34.12% vs VT's -50.27%.
On 10-year performance, VT leads with 12.96% vs 12.32% for GLOF. On fees, VT is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, GLOF has been the lower-risk option at 5.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, VT has performed better with a 12.96% return vs 12.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
VT is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for GLOF.
GLOF and VT have nearly identical dividend yields, around 1.61%.
GLOF tracks STOXX Global Equity Factor Index, while VT tracks FTSE Global All Cap Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for GLOF and 0.06% for VT.
GLOF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs 1.91), 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.
Find the right allocation for GLOF and VT
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