GMOI vs. RODM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GMOI (GMO International Value ETF) and RODM (Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds - GMOI tracks the MSCI World ex USA Value while RODM tracks the Hartford Risk-Optimized Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, GMOI returned 35.21% vs 24.04% for RODM. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GMOI charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for RODM.

Performance

GMOI vs. RODM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GMO International Value ETF (GMOI) and Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF (RODM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMOI achieves a 11.52% return, which is significantly higher than RODM's 10.16% return.

GMOI

• 1D: -1.03%
• 1M: -1.76%
• YTD: 11.52%
• 6M: 11.19%
• 1Y: 35.21%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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)

GMOI vs. RODM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GMOI GMO International Value ETF	11.52%	45.64%	-4.48%
RODM Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF	10.16%	34.42%	-2.61%

Correlation

The correlation between GMOI and RODM is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 29, 2024	0.89

The correlation between GMOI and RODM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

GMOI vs. RODM — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMOI

GMOI Risk / Return Rank: 85
GMOI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
GMOI Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
GMOI Omega Ratio Rank: 83
GMOI Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
GMOI Martin Ratio Rank: 85

RODM

RODM Risk / Return Rank: 74
RODM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
RODM Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
RODM Omega Ratio Rank: 73
RODM Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
RODM Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

GMOI vs. RODM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GMO International Value ETF (GMOI) 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.

	GMOI	RODM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.64	2.21	+0.43
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.65	3.12	+0.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.40	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.23	3.40	+0.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.65	13.45	+3.20

GMOI vs. RODM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMOI Sharpe Ratio is 2.64, which is comparable to the RODM Sharpe Ratio of 2.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMOI 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.

Drawdowns

GMOI vs. RODM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMOI drawdown since its inception was -14.67%, smaller than the maximum RODM drawdown of -35.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMOI and RODM.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMOI	RODM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.67%	-35.98%	+21.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.36%	-7.10%	-1.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-10.58%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-28.85%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.98%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.63%	-2.16%	-0.47%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.69%	-6.36%	+4.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.12%	1.79%	+0.33%

Volatility

GMOI vs. RODM - Volatility Comparison

GMO International Value ETF (GMOI) has a higher volatility of 3.99% compared to Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF (RODM) at 3.21%. This indicates that GMOI'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.

Volatility by Period

	GMOI	RODM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.99%	3.21%	+0.78%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.67%	8.77%	+1.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.40%	10.95%	+2.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.57%	13.45%	+2.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.57%	15.08%	+0.49%

GMOI vs. RODM - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMOI has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than RODM's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

GMOI vs. RODM - Dividend Comparison

GMOI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.45%, less than RODM's 2.82% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GMOI GMO International Value ETF	2.45%	2.74%	0.54%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
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

Can I hold both GMOI and RODM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, GMOI and RODM 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, GMOI or RODM?

GMOI has higher volatility (3.99%) compared to RODM (3.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMOI dropped -14.67% vs RODM's -35.98%.

Which ETF is better, GMOI or RODM?

On 1-year performance, GMOI leads with 35.21% vs 24.04% for RODM. On fees, RODM is cheaper at 0.29% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, GMOI or RODM?

Over the 1-year period, GMOI has performed better with a 35.21% return vs 24.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GMOI or RODM?

RODM is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GMOI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GMOI or RODM?

RODM has the higher dividend yield at 2.82%, compared with 2.45% for GMOI.

What is the main difference between GMOI and RODM?

GMOI tracks MSCI World ex USA Value, while RODM tracks Hartford Risk-Optimized Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) Index. They also come from different issuers: GMO and Hartford. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for GMOI and 0.29% for RODM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GMOI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.64 vs 2.21), 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.