KLMT vs. GLOF

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

KLMT (Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF) and GLOF (iShares Global Equity Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds - KLMT tracks the MSCI ACWI Select Climate 500 Index while GLOF tracks the STOXX Global Equity Factor Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, KLMT returned 25.28% vs 26.49% for GLOF. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. KLMT charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for GLOF.

Performance

KLMT vs. GLOF - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with KLMT having a 10.46% return and GLOF slightly higher at 10.82%.

KLMT

• 1D: -1.92%
• 1M: 0.34%
• YTD: 10.46%
• 6M: 9.86%
• 1Y: 25.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GLOF

• 1D: -2.29%
• 1M: -0.01%
• YTD: 10.82%
• 6M: 10.20%
• 1Y: 26.49%
• 3Y*: 21.52%
• 5Y*: 11.36%
• 10Y*: 12.32%

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

KLMT vs. GLOF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	10.46%	21.31%	4.94%
GLOF iShares Global Equity Factor ETF	10.82%	23.92%	3.94%

Correlation

The correlation between KLMT and GLOF is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2024	0.97

The correlation between KLMT and GLOF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

KLMT vs. GLOF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	KLMT	GLOF
Technology	33.8%	32.2%
Financial Services	16.2%	16.0%
Industrials	9.9%	8.8%
Communication Services	8.6%	8.4%
Consumer Cyclical	8.0%	10.6%
Healthcare	7.5%	8.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.7%	5.1%
Energy	3.2%	3.9%
Basic Materials	2.7%	3.2%
Real Estate	2.6%	1.1%
Utilities	1.8%	2.8%

Return for Risk

KLMT vs. GLOF — Risk / Return Rank

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

KLMT

KLMT Risk / Return Rank: 63
KLMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
KLMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
KLMT Omega Ratio Rank: 62
KLMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
KLMT Martin Ratio Rank: 68

GLOF

GLOF Risk / Return Rank: 65
GLOF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
GLOF Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
GLOF Omega Ratio Rank: 62
GLOF Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
GLOF Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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. GLOF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

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	GLOF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.90	1.99	-0.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.63	2.76	-0.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.36	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.66	2.94	-0.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.28	12.72	-1.44

KLMT vs. GLOF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KLMT Sharpe Ratio is 1.90, which is comparable to the GLOF Sharpe Ratio of 1.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KLMT 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.

Drawdowns

KLMT vs. GLOF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KLMT drawdown since its inception was -16.87%, smaller than the maximum GLOF drawdown of -34.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KLMT and GLOF.

Drawdown Indicators

	KLMT	GLOF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.87%	-34.12%	+17.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.54%	-9.05%	-0.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.12%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.15%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.18%	-2.85%	+0.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.91%	-6.09%	+4.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.25%	2.09%	+0.16%

Volatility

KLMT vs. GLOF - Volatility Comparison

Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT) and iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF) have volatilities of 5.40% and 5.42%, 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	GLOF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.40%	5.42%	-0.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.08%	11.10%	-0.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.40%	13.37%	+0.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.03%	15.81%	+0.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.03%	17.12%	-1.09%

KLMT vs. GLOF - Expense Ratio Comparison

KLMT has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than GLOF'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. GLOF - Dividend Comparison

KLMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.78%, more than GLOF's 1.61% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GLOF iShares Global Equity Factor ETF	1.61%	1.70%	2.59%	2.51%	2.53%	1.90%	1.73%	2.41%	2.03%	1.94%	1.94%	0.92%
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	1.78%	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 GLOF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, KLMT and GLOF 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 GLOF?

GLOF has higher volatility (5.42%) compared to KLMT (5.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KLMT dropped -16.87% vs GLOF's -34.12%.

Which ETF is better, KLMT or GLOF?

On 1-year performance, GLOF leads with 26.49% vs 25.28% for KLMT. On fees, KLMT is cheaper at 0.10% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KLMT or GLOF?

Over the 1-year period, GLOF has performed better with a 26.49% return vs 25.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KLMT or GLOF?

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

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

KLMT has the higher dividend yield at 1.78%, compared with 1.61% for GLOF.

What is the main difference between KLMT and GLOF?

KLMT tracks MSCI ACWI Select Climate 500 Index, while GLOF tracks STOXX Global Equity Factor Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for KLMT and 0.20% for GLOF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLOF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs 1.90), 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.