KLMT vs. ACWV

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

KLMT (Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds - KLMT tracks the MSCI ACWI Select Climate 500 Index while ACWV tracks the MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, KLMT returned 25.45% vs 8.60% for ACWV. Their 0.57 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. KLMT charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

KLMT vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KLMT achieves a 15.17% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 6.67% return.

KLMT

• 1D: 1.68%
• 1M: 3.32%
• 6M: 12.38%
• YTD: 15.17%
• 1Y: 25.45%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 19.93%

ACWV

• 1D: 0.85%
• 1M: 2.87%
• 6M: 4.49%
• YTD: 6.67%
• 1Y: 8.60%
• 3Y*: 11.20%
• 5Y*: 5.84%
• 10Y*: 7.31%
• ALL TIME*: 8.81%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	$12.68M	$11.33M	$12.51M
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	$56.55K	$62.22K	$75.80K

KLMT vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	15.17%	21.31%	4.94%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	6.67%	11.04%	5.58%

Correlation

The correlation between KLMT and ACWV is 0.49, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.49
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2024	0.57

The correlation between KLMT and ACWV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.49 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

KLMT vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	KLMT	ACWV
Technology	33.5%	25.3%
Financial Services	16.0%	13.5%
Industrials	10.5%	8.1%
Consumer Cyclical	8.6%	5.3%
Communication Services	8.5%	11.3%
Healthcare	8.2%	13.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	9.7%
Energy	3.1%	3.5%
Basic Materials	2.7%	1.5%
Real Estate	2.6%	0.6%
Utilities	1.6%	7.5%

Return for Risk

KLMT vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

KLMT

KLMT Risk / Return Rank: 72
KLMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
KLMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
KLMT Omega Ratio Rank: 70
KLMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
KLMT Martin Ratio Rank: 78

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 37
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 37
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 36

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

KLMT vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.

	KLMT	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.87	1.08	+0.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.58	1.61	+0.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.20	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.68	1.36	+1.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.17	3.85	+7.32

KLMT vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KLMT Sharpe Ratio is 1.87, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 1.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KLMT and ACWV, 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

KLMT vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KLMT drawdown since its inception was -16.87%, smaller than the maximum ACWV drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KLMT and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	KLMT	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.87%	-28.82%	+11.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.54%	-6.37%	-3.17%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-7.56%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.14%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-28.82%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.87%	-3.10%	+1.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.28%	2.24%	+0.04%

Volatility

KLMT vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT) has a higher volatility of 4.16% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 2.44%. This indicates that KLMT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KLMT	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.16%	2.44%	+1.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.52%	6.45%	+5.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.76%	8.07%	+5.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.89%	10.31%	+5.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.89%	12.31%	+3.58%

KLMT vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

KLMT has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

KLMT vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

KLMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.71%, less than ACWV's 1.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	1.88%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	1.71%	1.95%	0.85%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KLMT and ACWV in my portfolio?

KLMT and ACWV have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, KLMT or ACWV?

KLMT has higher volatility (4.16%) compared to ACWV (2.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KLMT dropped -16.87% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, KLMT or ACWV?

On 1-year performance, KLMT leads with 25.45% vs 8.60% for ACWV. On fees, KLMT is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 2.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KLMT or ACWV?

Over the 1-year period, KLMT has performed better with a 25.45% return vs 8.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KLMT or ACWV?

KLMT is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for ACWV.

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

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.88%, compared with 1.71% for KLMT.

What is the main difference between KLMT and ACWV?

KLMT tracks MSCI ACWI Select Climate 500 Index, while ACWV tracks MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for KLMT and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KLMT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.87 vs 1.08), 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.