GLRE.L vs. TRET.AS
Compare and contrast key facts about SPDR Dow Jones Global Real Estate UCITS ETF (GLRE.L) and VanEck Global Real Estate UCITS ETF (TRET.AS).
GLRE.L and TRET.AS are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. GLRE.L is a passively managed fund by State Street that tracks the performance of the FTSE EPRA Nareit Global TR USD. It was launched on Oct 23, 2012. TRET.AS is a passively managed fund by VanEck that tracks the performance of the FTSE EPRA Nareit Global TR USD. It was launched on Apr 14, 2011. Both GLRE.L and TRET.AS are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: GLRE.L or TRET.AS.
Key characteristics
GLRE.L | TRET.AS | |
---|---|---|
YTD Return | 4.49% | 11.97% |
1Y Return | 23.90% | 28.90% |
3Y Return (Ann) | -3.53% | 0.16% |
5Y Return (Ann) | 0.40% | 2.58% |
10Y Return (Ann) | 2.74% | 4.78% |
Sharpe Ratio | 1.20 | 1.91 |
Sortino Ratio | 1.82 | 2.75 |
Omega Ratio | 1.23 | 1.34 |
Calmar Ratio | 0.65 | 0.25 |
Martin Ratio | 4.07 | 10.51 |
Ulcer Index | 4.32% | 2.34% |
Daily Std Dev | 15.53% | 13.30% |
Max Drawdown | -43.26% | -99.19% |
Current Drawdown | -13.55% | -97.93% |
Correlation
The correlation between GLRE.L and TRET.AS is 0.84, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
GLRE.L vs. TRET.AS - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, GLRE.L achieves a 4.49% return, which is significantly lower than TRET.AS's 11.97% return. Over the past 10 years, GLRE.L has underperformed TRET.AS with an annualized return of 2.74%, while TRET.AS has yielded a comparatively higher 4.78% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
GLRE.L vs. TRET.AS - Expense Ratio Comparison
GLRE.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than TRET.AS's 0.25% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
GLRE.L vs. TRET.AS - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Dow Jones Global Real Estate UCITS ETF (GLRE.L) and VanEck Global Real Estate UCITS ETF (TRET.AS). 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.
Dividends
GLRE.L vs. TRET.AS - Dividend Comparison
GLRE.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.65%, less than TRET.AS's 3.34% yield.
TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SPDR Dow Jones Global Real Estate UCITS ETF | 2.65% | 2.62% | 2.85% | 1.82% | 2.51% | 3.16% | 3.54% | 3.86% | 2.66% | 2.15% | 2.27% | 2.55% |
VanEck Global Real Estate UCITS ETF | 3.34% | 3.67% | 4.68% | 1.78% | 4.43% | 3.33% | 4.31% | 3.16% | 3.13% | 2.55% | 2.70% | 3.01% |
Drawdowns
GLRE.L vs. TRET.AS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GLRE.L drawdown since its inception was -43.26%, smaller than the maximum TRET.AS drawdown of -99.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLRE.L and TRET.AS. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
GLRE.L vs. TRET.AS - Volatility Comparison
SPDR Dow Jones Global Real Estate UCITS ETF (GLRE.L) and VanEck Global Real Estate UCITS ETF (TRET.AS) have volatilities of 4.17% and 4.28%, 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.