KLMT vs. BLES

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

KLMT (Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF) and BLES (Inspire Global Hope ETF) are both Global Equities funds - KLMT tracks the MSCI ACWI Select Climate 500 Index while BLES tracks the Inspire Global Hope Large Cap Equal Weight Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, KLMT returned 27.86% vs 23.80% for BLES. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. KLMT charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for BLES.

Performance

KLMT vs. BLES - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with KLMT having a 12.04% return and BLES slightly lower at 11.95%.

KLMT

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

BLES

• 1D: -0.55%
• 1M: 3.04%
• YTD: 11.95%
• 6M: 12.47%
• 1Y: 23.80%
• 3Y*: 16.04%
• 5Y*: 7.38%
• 10Y*: —

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

KLMT vs. BLES - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	12.04%	21.31%	4.94%
BLES Inspire Global Hope ETF	11.95%	19.25%	2.26%

Correlation

The correlation between KLMT and BLES is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2024	0.86

The correlation between KLMT and BLES has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

KLMT vs. BLES - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	KLMT	BLES
Technology	30.0%	15.6%
Financial Services	16.9%	10.3%
Industrials	10.2%	16.3%
Communication Services	9.6%	1.0%
Consumer Cyclical	9.2%	4.5%
Healthcare	8.0%	5.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	3.3%
Energy	4.1%	5.8%
Basic Materials	2.8%	7.8%
Real Estate	2.7%	6.9%
Utilities	2.0%	5.5%

Return for Risk

KLMT vs. BLES — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

BLES

BLES Risk / Return Rank: 57
BLES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
BLES Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
BLES Omega Ratio Rank: 54
BLES Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
BLES Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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.

KLMT vs. BLES - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT) and Inspire Global Hope ETF (BLES). 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.

	KLMT	BLES	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.22	1.92	+0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.10	2.70	+0.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.34	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.93	2.88	+0.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.75	10.93	+1.82
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

KLMT vs. BLES - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KLMT Sharpe Ratio is 2.22, which is comparable to the BLES Sharpe Ratio of 1.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KLMT and BLES, 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

	KLMT	BLES	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.22	1.92	+0.30
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.45	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.28	0.54	+0.74

Drawdowns

KLMT vs. BLES - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KLMT drawdown since its inception was -16.87%, smaller than the maximum BLES drawdown of -40.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KLMT and BLES.

Drawdown Indicators

	KLMT	BLES	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.87%	-40.35%	+23.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.54%	-8.29%	-1.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.46%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.61%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.78%	-0.55%	-0.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.91%	-6.05%	+4.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.19%	2.18%	+0.01%

Volatility

KLMT vs. BLES - Volatility Comparison

Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT) and Inspire Global Hope ETF (BLES) have volatilities of 3.76% and 3.61%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KLMT	BLES	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.76%	3.61%	+0.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.07%	9.60%	+0.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.61%	12.43%	+0.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.85%	16.46%	-0.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.85%	18.94%	-3.09%

KLMT vs. BLES - Expense Ratio Comparison

KLMT has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than BLES's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

KLMT vs. BLES - Dividend Comparison

KLMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%, less than BLES's 1.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BLES Inspire Global Hope ETF	1.77%	1.97%	1.90%	1.80%	1.64%	9.28%	1.61%	2.16%	1.73%	2.01%
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	1.75%	1.95%	0.85%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KLMT and BLES in my portfolio?

KLMT and BLES have a correlation of 0.83, 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 BLES?

KLMT has higher volatility (3.76%) compared to BLES (3.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KLMT dropped -16.87% vs BLES's -40.35%.

Which ETF is better, KLMT or BLES?

On 1-year performance, KLMT leads with 27.86% vs 23.80% for BLES. On fees, KLMT is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, BLES has been the lower-risk option at 3.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KLMT or BLES?

Over the 1-year period, KLMT has performed better with a 27.86% return vs 23.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KLMT or BLES?

KLMT is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for BLES.

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

BLES has the higher dividend yield at 1.77%, compared with 1.75% for KLMT.

What is the main difference between KLMT and BLES?

KLMT tracks MSCI ACWI Select Climate 500 Index, while BLES tracks Inspire Global Hope Large Cap Equal Weight Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Inspire. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for KLMT and 0.58% for BLES.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KLMT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 vs 1.92), 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.