PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GXUS vs. QEFA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GXUS vs. QEFA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs MarketBeta(R) Total International Equity ETF (GXUS) and SPDR MSCI EAFE StrategicFactors ETF (QEFA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GXUS achieves a 14.90% return, which is significantly higher than QEFA's 6.80% return.


GXUS

1D
-0.98%
1M
5.14%
YTD
14.90%
6M
17.66%
1Y
31.75%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

QEFA

1D
-0.49%
1M
1.69%
YTD
6.80%
6M
8.78%
1Y
17.29%
3Y*
14.76%
5Y*
7.62%
10Y*
8.67%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GXUS vs. QEFA - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
GXUS
Goldman Sachs MarketBeta(R) Total International Equity ETF
14.90%31.47%4.61%6.23%
QEFA
SPDR MSCI EAFE StrategicFactors ETF
6.80%29.25%2.27%7.75%

Correlation

The correlation between GXUS and QEFA 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 8, 2023

0.87

The correlation between GXUS and QEFA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

GXUS vs. QEFA — Risk / Return Rank

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

GXUS
GXUS Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
GXUS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5858
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GXUS Sortino Ratio Rank: 5656
Sortino Ratio Rank
GXUS Omega Ratio Rank: 5757
Omega Ratio Rank
GXUS Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
GXUS Martin Ratio Rank: 6060
Martin Ratio Rank

QEFA
QEFA Risk / Return Rank: 3838
Overall Rank
QEFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QEFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 3737
Sortino Ratio Rank
QEFA Omega Ratio Rank: 3737
Omega Ratio Rank
QEFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3636
Calmar Ratio Rank
QEFA Martin Ratio Rank: 4040
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.

GXUS vs. QEFA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs MarketBeta(R) Total International Equity ETF (GXUS) and SPDR MSCI EAFE StrategicFactors ETF (QEFA). 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.


GXUSQEFADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.59

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.73

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.24

+0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.78

1.81

+0.97

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.51

6.52

+3.99

GXUS vs. QEFA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GXUS Sharpe Ratio is 1.95, which is higher than the QEFA Sharpe Ratio of 1.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GXUS and QEFA, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


GXUSQEFADifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.95

1.37

+0.59

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.52

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.54

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.25

0.43

+0.82

Drawdowns

GXUS vs. QEFA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GXUS drawdown since its inception was -13.90%, smaller than the maximum QEFA drawdown of -31.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GXUS and QEFA.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GXUSQEFADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-13.90%

-31.71%

+17.81%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.46%

-9.58%

-1.88%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.23%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.09%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-31.71%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.98%

-2.93%

+1.95%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.80%

-6.08%

+3.28%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.03%

2.66%

+0.37%

Volatility

GXUS vs. QEFA - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs MarketBeta(R) Total International Equity ETF (GXUS) has a higher volatility of 5.42% compared to SPDR MSCI EAFE StrategicFactors ETF (QEFA) at 3.94%. This indicates that GXUS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QEFA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GXUSQEFADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.42%

3.94%

+1.48%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.11%

10.25%

+2.86%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.33%

12.76%

+3.57%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.22%

14.77%

+0.45%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.22%

16.03%

-0.81%

GXUS vs. QEFA - Expense Ratio Comparison

GXUS has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than QEFA's 0.30% expense ratio.


Dividends

GXUS vs. QEFA - Dividend Comparison

GXUS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.19%, less than QEFA's 2.87% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
GXUS
Goldman Sachs MarketBeta(R) Total International Equity ETF
2.19%2.66%2.87%1.28%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
QEFA
SPDR MSCI EAFE StrategicFactors ETF
2.87%3.13%3.17%2.79%3.02%2.37%1.82%2.95%3.22%2.33%2.01%2.94%

Frequently Asked Questions


GXUS and QEFA 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.

GXUS has higher volatility (5.42%) compared to QEFA (3.94%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GXUS dropped -13.90% vs QEFA's -31.71%.

On 1-year performance, GXUS leads with 31.75% vs 17.29% for QEFA. On fees, GXUS is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, QEFA has been the lower-risk option at 3.94%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, GXUS has performed better with a 31.75% return vs 17.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

GXUS is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for QEFA.

QEFA has the higher dividend yield at 2.87%, compared with 2.19% for GXUS.

GXUS tracks Solactive GBS Global Markets ex United States Large & Mid Cap Index - Benchmark TR Net, while QEFA tracks MSCI EAFE Factor Mix A-Series (USD). They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for GXUS and 0.30% for QEFA.

GXUS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.95 vs 1.37), 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 GXUS and QEFA

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