KLMT vs. SFGV

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

KLMT (Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF) and SFGV (Sequoia Global Value ETF) are both Global Equities funds. KLMT is passively managed, while SFGV is actively managed. Over the past year, KLMT returned 23.90% vs 26.03% for SFGV. Their 0.79 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. KLMT charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for SFGV.

Performance

KLMT vs. SFGV - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KLMT achieves a 12.18% return, which is significantly lower than SFGV's 13.93% return.

KLMT

• 1D: 0.84%
• 1M: 0.63%
• 6M: 9.37%
• YTD: 12.18%
• 1Y: 23.90%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.55%

SFGV

• 1D: -0.50%
• 1M: 1.16%
• 6M: 7.57%
• YTD: 13.93%
• 1Y: 26.03%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 17.47%

*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)
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	$54.97K	$63.59K	$76.30K
SFGV Sequoia Global Value ETF	$327.92K	$400.72K	$470.11K

KLMT vs. SFGV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	12.18%	21.31%	4.94%
SFGV Sequoia Global Value ETF	13.93%	18.84%	2.32%

Correlation

The correlation between KLMT and SFGV is 0.75, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2024	0.79

The correlation between KLMT and SFGV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

KLMT vs. SFGV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	KLMT	SFGV
Technology	33.5%	6.7%
Financial Services	16.0%	45.3%
Industrials	10.5%	11.1%
Consumer Cyclical	8.6%	9.8%
Communication Services	8.5%	1.5%
Healthcare	8.2%	9.2%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	6.5%
Energy	3.1%	5.6%
Basic Materials	2.7%	3.8%
Real Estate	2.6%	0.2%
Utilities	1.6%	0.0%

Return for Risk

KLMT vs. SFGV — Risk / Return Rank

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

KLMT

KLMT Risk / Return Rank: 71
KLMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
KLMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
KLMT Omega Ratio Rank: 70
KLMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
KLMT Martin Ratio Rank: 77

SFGV

SFGV Risk / Return Rank: 87
SFGV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
SFGV Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
SFGV Omega Ratio Rank: 89
SFGV Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
SFGV Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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. SFGV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT) and Sequoia Global Value ETF (SFGV). 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	SFGV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.65	2.22	-0.57
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.30	3.20	-0.90
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.40	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.36	3.04	-0.68
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.85	11.70	-1.84

KLMT vs. SFGV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KLMT Sharpe Ratio is 1.65, which is comparable to the SFGV Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KLMT and SFGV, 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. SFGV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KLMT drawdown since its inception was -16.87%, which is greater than SFGV's maximum drawdown of -14.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KLMT and SFGV.

Drawdown Indicators

	KLMT	SFGV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.87%	-14.51%	-2.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.54%	-8.36%	-1.18%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.66%	-0.89%	+0.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.87%	-1.81%	-0.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.28%	2.17%	+0.11%

Volatility

KLMT vs. SFGV - Volatility Comparison

Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT) has a higher volatility of 3.88% compared to Sequoia Global Value ETF (SFGV) at 2.75%. This indicates that KLMT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SFGV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KLMT	SFGV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.88%	2.75%	+1.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.42%	8.72%	+2.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.71%	11.54%	+2.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.87%	13.08%	+2.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.87%	13.08%	+2.79%

KLMT vs. SFGV - Expense Ratio Comparison

KLMT has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than SFGV's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

KLMT vs. SFGV - Dividend Comparison

KLMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%, less than SFGV's 2.34% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	1.75%	1.95%	0.85%
SFGV Sequoia Global Value ETF	2.34%	2.52%	2.23%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KLMT and SFGV in my portfolio?

KLMT and SFGV have a correlation of 0.75, 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 SFGV?

KLMT has higher volatility (3.88%) compared to SFGV (2.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KLMT dropped -16.87% vs SFGV's -14.51%.

Which ETF is better, KLMT or SFGV?

On 1-year performance, SFGV leads with 26.03% vs 23.90% for KLMT. On fees, KLMT is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, SFGV has been the lower-risk option at 2.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KLMT or SFGV?

Over the 1-year period, SFGV has performed better with a 26.03% return vs 23.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KLMT or SFGV?

KLMT is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for SFGV.

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

SFGV has the higher dividend yield at 2.34%, compared with 1.75% for KLMT.

What is the main difference between KLMT and SFGV?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Sequoia Financial. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for KLMT and 0.33% for SFGV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SFGV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 vs 1.65), 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.