ILF vs. OTGL
ILF (iShares Latin American 40 ETF) and OTGL (OTG Latin America ETF) are both Latin America Equities funds - ILF tracks the S&P Latin America 40 Index while OTGL tracks the Actively Managed. Both are passively managed. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ILF charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for OTGL.
Performance
ILF vs. OTGL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ILF achieves a 11.66% return, which is significantly higher than OTGL's 5.63% return.
ILF
- 1D
- -2.72%
- 1M
- -4.92%
- YTD
- 11.66%
- 6M
- 10.51%
- 1Y
- 39.82%
- 3Y*
- 15.62%
- 5Y*
- 8.53%
- 10Y*
- 8.33%
OTGL
- 1D
- -1.90%
- 1M
- -1.12%
- YTD
- 5.63%
- 6M
- 5.67%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ILF vs. OTGL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ILF iShares Latin American 40 ETF | 11.66% | 23.51% |
OTGL OTG Latin America ETF | 5.63% | 13.64% |
Correlation
The correlation between ILF and OTGL is 0.89, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 15, 2025 | 0.89 |
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
ILF vs. OTGL — Risk / Return Rank
ILF
OTGL
ILF vs. OTGL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Latin American 40 ETF (ILF) and OTG Latin America ETF (OTGL). 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.
| ILF | OTGL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.31 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.16 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.70 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ILF | OTGL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.84 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.37 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.29 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.30 | 1.20 | -0.90 |
Drawdowns
ILF vs. OTGL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ILF drawdown since its inception was -67.48%, which is greater than OTGL's maximum drawdown of -13.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ILF and OTGL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ILF | OTGL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -67.48% | -13.52% | -53.96% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.67% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.97% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -29.71% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -57.79% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -10.76% | -8.97% | -1.79% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -23.94% | -3.00% | -20.94% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.12% | — | — |
Volatility
ILF vs. OTGL - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ILF | OTGL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.49% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 18.52% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 21.76% | 19.02% | +2.74% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 23.18% | 19.02% | +4.16% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 28.44% | 19.02% | +9.42% |
ILF vs. OTGL - Expense Ratio Comparison
ILF has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is lower than OTGL's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
ILF vs. OTGL - Dividend Comparison
ILF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.93%, more than OTGL's 1.83% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ILF iShares Latin American 40 ETF | 3.93% | 4.39% | 7.44% | 4.61% | 12.72% | 8.47% | 1.88% | 3.09% | 3.12% | 1.80% | 1.59% | 3.25% |
OTGL OTG Latin America ETF | 1.83% | 1.89% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ILF and OTGL have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ILF is cheaper at 0.48% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ILF is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for OTGL.
ILF has the higher dividend yield at 3.93%, compared with 1.83% for OTGL.
ILF tracks S&P Latin America 40 Index, while OTGL tracks Actively Managed. They also come from different issuers: iShares and OTG. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for ILF and 0.95% for OTGL.
Find the right allocation for ILF and OTGL
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