KLMT vs. CGGO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

KLMT (Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF) and CGGO (Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF) are both Global Equities funds. KLMT is passively managed, while CGGO is actively managed. Over the past year, KLMT returned 27.86% vs 37.51% for CGGO. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. KLMT charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for CGGO.

Performance

KLMT vs. CGGO - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KLMT achieves a 12.04% return, which is significantly lower than CGGO's 19.37% return.

KLMT

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

CGGO

• 1D: -0.82%
• 1M: 9.97%
• YTD: 19.37%
• 6M: 20.83%
• 1Y: 37.51%
• 3Y*: 21.81%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

KLMT vs. CGGO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	12.04%	21.31%	4.94%
CGGO Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF	19.37%	21.08%	-0.74%

Correlation

The correlation between KLMT and CGGO is 0.92, 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	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2024	0.94

The correlation between KLMT and CGGO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

KLMT vs. CGGO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	KLMT	CGGO
Technology	30.0%	37.3%
Financial Services	16.9%	10.7%
Industrials	10.2%	14.0%
Communication Services	9.6%	8.1%
Consumer Cyclical	9.2%	10.2%
Healthcare	8.0%	5.4%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	4.8%
Energy	4.1%	1.4%
Basic Materials	2.8%	4.4%
Real Estate	2.7%	-
Utilities	2.0%	1.3%

Return for Risk

KLMT vs. CGGO — 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

CGGO

CGGO Risk / Return Rank: 65
CGGO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
CGGO Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
CGGO Omega Ratio Rank: 66
CGGO Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
CGGO Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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. CGGO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT) and Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF (CGGO). 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	CGGO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.22	2.25	-0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.10	3.08	+0.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.40	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.93	2.87	+0.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.75	13.04	-0.29
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. CGGO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KLMT Sharpe Ratio is 2.22, which is comparable to the CGGO Sharpe Ratio of 2.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KLMT and CGGO, 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	CGGO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.22	2.25	-0.03
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.28	0.78	+0.50

Drawdowns

KLMT vs. CGGO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KLMT drawdown since its inception was -16.87%, smaller than the maximum CGGO drawdown of -24.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KLMT and CGGO.

Drawdown Indicators

	KLMT	CGGO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.87%	-24.90%	+8.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.54%	-13.15%	+3.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-17.93%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.78%	-0.82%	+0.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.91%	-5.50%	+3.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.19%	2.88%	-0.69%

Volatility

KLMT vs. CGGO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT) is 3.76%, while Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF (CGGO) has a volatility of 6.68%. This indicates that KLMT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGGO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KLMT	CGGO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.76%	6.68%	-2.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.07%	14.40%	-4.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.61%	16.77%	-4.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.85%	18.56%	-2.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.85%	18.56%	-2.71%

KLMT vs. CGGO - Expense Ratio Comparison

KLMT has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than CGGO's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

KLMT vs. CGGO - Dividend Comparison

KLMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%, more than CGGO's 1.70% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CGGO Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF	1.70%	2.03%	1.10%	0.76%	0.59%
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	1.75%	1.95%	0.85%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KLMT and CGGO in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, KLMT and CGGO move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, KLMT or CGGO?

CGGO has higher volatility (6.68%) compared to KLMT (3.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KLMT dropped -16.87% vs CGGO's -24.90%.

Which ETF is better, KLMT or CGGO?

On 1-year performance, CGGO leads with 37.51% vs 27.86% for KLMT. On fees, KLMT is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, KLMT has been the lower-risk option at 3.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KLMT or CGGO?

Over the 1-year period, CGGO has performed better with a 37.51% return vs 27.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KLMT or CGGO?

KLMT is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for CGGO.

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

KLMT has the higher dividend yield at 1.75%, compared with 1.70% for CGGO.

What is the main difference between KLMT and CGGO?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for KLMT and 0.47% for CGGO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGGO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.25 vs 2.22), 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.