KONG vs. EELV

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

KONG (Formidable Fortress ETF) and EELV (Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Low Volatility ETF) are both Volatility Hedged Equity funds. KONG is actively managed, while EELV is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, KONG returned 7.82%/yr vs 11.19%/yr for EELV. At a 0.50 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. KONG charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for EELV.

Performance

KONG vs. EELV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Formidable Fortress ETF (KONG) and Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Low Volatility ETF (EELV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KONG achieves a -0.44% return, which is significantly lower than EELV's 4.67% return.

KONG

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: -1.91%
• YTD: -0.44%
• 6M: -1.57%
• 1Y: 4.54%
• 3Y*: 7.82%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EELV

• 1D: -0.69%
• 1M: -0.11%
• YTD: 4.67%
• 6M: 4.56%
• 1Y: 15.36%
• 3Y*: 11.19%
• 5Y*: 7.47%
• 10Y*: 6.88%

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

KONG vs. EELV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
KONG Formidable Fortress ETF	-0.44%	6.56%	9.67%	12.71%	-9.63%	5.15%
EELV Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Low Volatility ETF	4.67%	21.97%	1.90%	8.85%	-3.98%	5.65%

Correlation

The correlation between KONG and EELV is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.49
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 22, 2021	0.50

KONG vs. EELV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	KONG	EELV
Technology	35.2%	0.2%
Industrials	16.8%	8.9%
Healthcare	12.4%	5.2%
Communication Services	8.3%	9.7%
Financial Services	7.7%	37.8%
Real Estate	5.8%	2.6%
Energy	5.4%	6.5%
Basic Materials	3.6%	5.1%
Consumer Cyclical	2.7%	3.9%
Consumer Defensive	2.1%	10.9%
Utilities	-	9.3%

Return for Risk

KONG vs. EELV — Risk / Return Rank

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

KONG

KONG Risk / Return Rank: 15
KONG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
KONG Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
KONG Omega Ratio Rank: 14
KONG Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
KONG Martin Ratio Rank: 19

EELV

EELV Risk / Return Rank: 41
EELV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
EELV Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
EELV Omega Ratio Rank: 41
EELV Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
EELV Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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.

KONG vs. EELV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Formidable Fortress ETF (KONG) and Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Low Volatility ETF (EELV). 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.

	KONG	EELV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.42	1.39	-0.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.66	2.00	-1.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.25	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.53	1.88	-1.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.05	5.97	-3.91

KONG vs. EELV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KONG Sharpe Ratio is 0.42, which is lower than the EELV Sharpe Ratio of 1.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KONG and EELV, 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

KONG vs. EELV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KONG drawdown since its inception was -19.98%, smaller than the maximum EELV drawdown of -36.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KONG and EELV.

Drawdown Indicators

	KONG	EELV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.98%	-36.35%	+16.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.54%	-8.22%	-0.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.48%	-11.79%	-3.69%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.04%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-36.35%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.87%	-4.07%	+0.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.78%	-8.91%	+3.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.22%	2.58%	-0.36%

Volatility

KONG vs. EELV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Formidable Fortress ETF (KONG) is 3.18%, while Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Low Volatility ETF (EELV) has a volatility of 3.47%. This indicates that KONG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EELV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KONG	EELV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.18%	3.47%	-0.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.70%	9.28%	-0.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.94%	11.11%	-0.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.56%	11.40%	+3.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.56%	13.53%	+1.03%

KONG vs. EELV - Expense Ratio Comparison

KONG has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than EELV's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

KONG vs. EELV - Dividend Comparison

KONG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.37%, less than EELV's 3.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EELV Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Low Volatility ETF	3.93%	3.75%	4.70%	4.00%	3.45%	4.35%	2.82%	3.14%	5.50%	2.92%	2.29%	2.53%
KONG Formidable Fortress ETF	0.37%	0.37%	0.78%	0.69%	0.49%	0.12%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KONG and EELV in my portfolio?

KONG and EELV 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, KONG or EELV?

EELV has higher volatility (3.47%) compared to KONG (3.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KONG dropped -19.98% vs EELV's -36.35%.

Which ETF is better, KONG or EELV?

On 3-year performance, EELV leads with 11.19% vs 7.82% for KONG. On fees, EELV is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, KONG has been the lower-risk option at 3.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KONG or EELV?

Over the 3-year period, EELV has performed better with a 11.19% return vs 7.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KONG or EELV?

EELV is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for KONG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, KONG or EELV?

EELV has the higher dividend yield at 3.93%, compared with 0.37% for KONG.

What is the main difference between KONG and EELV?

They also come from different issuers: Formidable Asset Management and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for KONG and 0.30% for EELV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EELV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.39 vs 0.42), 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.