GXTG vs. KLMT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GXTG (Global X Thematic Growth ETF) and KLMT (Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF) are both Global Equities funds - GXTG tracks the Solactive Thematic Growth Index while KLMT tracks the MSCI ACWI Select Climate 500 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, GXTG returned 22.25% vs 27.86% for KLMT. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GXTG charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for KLMT.

Performance

GXTG vs. KLMT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Thematic Growth ETF (GXTG) and Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GXTG achieves a 25.21% return, which is significantly higher than KLMT's 12.04% return.

GXTG

• 1D: -2.35%
• 1M: 8.75%
• YTD: 25.21%
• 6M: 20.12%
• 1Y: 22.25%
• 3Y*: 6.51%
• 5Y*: -7.87%
• 10Y*: —

KLMT

• 1D: -0.78%
• 1M: 5.23%
• YTD: 12.04%
• 6M: 12.88%
• 1Y: 27.86%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GXTG vs. KLMT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GXTG Global X Thematic Growth ETF	25.21%	3.52%	3.29%
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	12.04%	21.31%	4.94%

Correlation

The correlation between GXTG and KLMT is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2024	0.77

The correlation between GXTG and KLMT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

GXTG vs. KLMT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GXTG	KLMT
Technology	22.3%	30.0%
Basic Materials	14.4%	2.8%
Utilities	12.4%	2.0%
Communication Services	11.7%	9.6%
Consumer Cyclical	11.5%	9.2%
Healthcare	10.5%	8.0%
Industrials	8.0%	10.2%
Real Estate	6.9%	2.7%
Financial Services	2.3%	16.9%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.6%
Energy	-	4.1%

Return for Risk

GXTG vs. KLMT — Risk / Return Rank

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

GXTG

GXTG Risk / Return Rank: 23
GXTG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
GXTG Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
GXTG Omega Ratio Rank: 25
GXTG Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
GXTG Martin Ratio Rank: 19

KLMT

KLMT Risk / Return Rank: 67
KLMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
KLMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
KLMT Omega Ratio Rank: 67
KLMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
KLMT Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

GXTG vs. KLMT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Thematic Growth ETF (GXTG) 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.

	GXTG	KLMT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.88	2.22	-1.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.32	3.10	-1.78
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.40	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.91	2.93	-2.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.15	12.75	-10.59
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GXTG vs. KLMT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GXTG Sharpe Ratio is 0.88, which is lower than the KLMT Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GXTG 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GXTG	KLMT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.88	2.22	-1.34
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.29	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.12	1.28	-1.16

Drawdowns

GXTG vs. KLMT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GXTG drawdown since its inception was -67.81%, which is greater than KLMT's maximum drawdown of -16.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GXTG and KLMT.

Drawdown Indicators

	GXTG	KLMT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-67.81%	-16.87%	-50.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.65%	-9.54%	-15.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-31.89%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-61.17%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-50.50%	-0.78%	-49.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-43.09%	-1.91%	-41.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.35%	2.19%	+8.16%

Volatility

GXTG vs. KLMT - Volatility Comparison

Global X Thematic Growth ETF (GXTG) has a higher volatility of 10.21% compared to Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT) at 3.76%. This indicates that GXTG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than KLMT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GXTG	KLMT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.21%	3.76%	+6.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.97%	10.07%	+8.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.52%	12.61%	+12.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.63%	15.85%	+11.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.59%	15.85%	+13.74%

GXTG vs. KLMT - Expense Ratio Comparison

GXTG has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than KLMT's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

GXTG vs. KLMT - Dividend Comparison

GXTG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.12%, less than KLMT's 1.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
GXTG Global X Thematic Growth ETF	1.12%	1.40%	1.08%	1.99%	1.48%	1.56%	0.48%	0.31%
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	1.75%	1.95%	0.85%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GXTG and KLMT in my portfolio?

GXTG and KLMT have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GXTG or KLMT?

GXTG has higher volatility (10.21%) compared to KLMT (3.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GXTG dropped -67.81% vs KLMT's -16.87%.

Which ETF is better, GXTG or KLMT?

On 1-year performance, KLMT leads with 27.86% vs 22.25% for GXTG. On fees, KLMT is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, KLMT has been the lower-risk option at 3.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GXTG or KLMT?

Over the 1-year period, KLMT has performed better with a 27.86% return vs 22.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GXTG or KLMT?

KLMT is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for GXTG.

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

KLMT has the higher dividend yield at 1.75%, compared with 1.12% for GXTG.

What is the main difference between GXTG and KLMT?

GXTG tracks Solactive Thematic Growth Index, while KLMT tracks MSCI ACWI Select Climate 500 Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for GXTG and 0.10% for KLMT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KLMT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 vs 0.88), 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.