PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
INKM vs. GLOF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

INKM vs. GLOF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR SSgA Income Allocation ETF (INKM) and iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, INKM achieves a 5.61% return, which is significantly lower than GLOF's 13.19% return. Over the past 10 years, INKM has underperformed GLOF with an annualized return of 5.59%, while GLOF has yielded a comparatively higher 12.29% annualized return.


INKM

1D
-0.29%
1M
0.93%
YTD
5.61%
6M
5.74%
1Y
13.00%
3Y*
10.04%
5Y*
3.96%
10Y*
5.59%

GLOF

1D
-0.77%
1M
5.15%
YTD
13.19%
6M
14.18%
1Y
30.42%
3Y*
22.67%
5Y*
11.56%
10Y*
12.29%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

INKM vs. GLOF - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
INKM
SPDR SSgA Income Allocation ETF
5.61%11.86%5.70%10.26%-12.58%8.52%3.11%17.12%-5.32%13.95%
GLOF
iShares Global Equity Factor ETF
13.19%23.92%17.49%22.38%-16.97%18.68%10.00%23.21%-13.70%29.86%

Correlation

The correlation between INKM and GLOF is 0.71, 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

0.71

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.69

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.74

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.72

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2015

0.69

The correlation between INKM and GLOF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

INKM vs. GLOF - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
INKM
GLOF

Industrials

14.6%
9.3%

Utilities

13.9%
3.1%

Technology

13.2%
28.8%

Energy

11.1%
4.4%

Real Estate

10.9%
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

8.6%
5.7%

Financial Services

8.3%
16.7%

Healthcare

6.8%
8.2%

Communication Services

6.2%
8.7%

Consumer Cyclical

5.1%
10.7%

Basic Materials

1.4%
3.3%

Industrials

INKM
14.6%
GLOF
9.3%

Utilities

INKM
13.9%
GLOF
3.1%

Technology

INKM
13.2%
GLOF
28.8%

Energy

INKM
11.1%
GLOF
4.4%

Real Estate

INKM
10.9%
GLOF
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

INKM
8.6%
GLOF
5.7%

Financial Services

INKM
8.3%
GLOF
16.7%

Healthcare

INKM
6.8%
GLOF
8.2%

Communication Services

INKM
6.2%
GLOF
8.7%

Consumer Cyclical

INKM
5.1%
GLOF
10.7%

Basic Materials

INKM
1.4%
GLOF
3.3%

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

INKM vs. GLOF — Risk / Return Rank

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

INKM
INKM Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
INKM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
INKM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6868
Sortino Ratio Rank
INKM Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
INKM Calmar Ratio Rank: 5858
Calmar Ratio Rank
INKM Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank

GLOF
GLOF Risk / Return Rank: 7373
Overall Rank
GLOF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7474
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GLOF Sortino Ratio Rank: 7575
Sortino Ratio Rank
GLOF Omega Ratio Rank: 7171
Omega Ratio Rank
GLOF Calmar Ratio Rank: 6767
Calmar Ratio Rank
GLOF Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
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.

INKM vs. GLOF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR SSgA Income Allocation ETF (INKM) and iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF). 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.


INKMGLOFDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.20

2.43

-0.24

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

3.12

3.41

-0.30

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.42

1.43

-0.01

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

2.87

3.38

-0.51

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

11.30

15.08

-3.78

INKM vs. GLOF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current INKM Sharpe Ratio is 2.20, which is comparable to the GLOF Sharpe Ratio of 2.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of INKM and GLOF, 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


INKMGLOFDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.20

2.43

-0.24

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.48

0.74

-0.26

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.57

0.72

-0.14

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.57

0.60

-0.02

Drawdowns

INKM vs. GLOF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum INKM drawdown since its inception was -28.58%, smaller than the maximum GLOF drawdown of -34.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for INKM and GLOF.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


INKMGLOFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.58%

-34.12%

+5.54%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.55%

-9.05%

+4.50%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-9.25%

-16.12%

+6.87%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.18%

-25.15%

+5.97%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-28.58%

-34.12%

+5.54%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.33%

-0.77%

+0.44%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.69%

-6.12%

+2.43%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.15%

2.02%

-0.87%

Volatility

INKM vs. GLOF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR SSgA Income Allocation ETF (INKM) is 1.67%, while iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF) has a volatility of 3.65%. This indicates that INKM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLOF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


INKMGLOFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.67%

3.65%

-1.98%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.59%

10.10%

-5.51%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.95%

12.57%

-6.62%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.30%

15.69%

-7.39%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

9.78%

17.17%

-7.39%

INKM vs. GLOF - Expense Ratio Comparison

INKM has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than GLOF's 0.20% expense ratio.


Dividends

INKM vs. GLOF - Dividend Comparison

INKM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.86%, more than GLOF's 1.50% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
GLOF
iShares Global Equity Factor ETF
1.50%1.70%2.59%2.51%2.53%1.90%1.73%2.41%2.03%1.94%1.94%0.92%
INKM
SPDR SSgA Income Allocation ETF
4.86%5.82%4.83%4.56%5.03%3.74%3.88%4.38%4.08%3.10%3.39%3.45%

Frequently Asked Questions


INKM and GLOF have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GLOF has higher volatility (3.65%) compared to INKM (1.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, INKM dropped -28.58% vs GLOF's -34.12%.

On 10-year performance, GLOF leads with 12.29% vs 5.59% for INKM. On fees, GLOF is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, INKM has been the lower-risk option at 1.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, GLOF has performed better with a 12.29% return vs 5.59%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

GLOF is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for INKM.

INKM has the higher dividend yield at 4.86%, compared with 1.50% for GLOF.

They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for INKM and 0.20% for GLOF.

GLOF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.43 vs 2.20), 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 INKM and GLOF

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