KRMA vs. BBHL
KRMA (Global X Conscious Companies ETF) and BBHL (BBH Select Large Cap ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds - KRMA tracks the Concinnity Conscious Companies Index GTR Index while BBHL tracks the Actively Managed. Both are passively managed. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. KRMA charges 0.43%/yr vs 0.71%/yr for BBHL.
Performance
KRMA vs. BBHL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, KRMA achieves a 12.23% return, which is significantly higher than BBHL's 6.39% return.
KRMA
- 1D
- 0.38%
- 1M
- 5.83%
- YTD
- 12.23%
- 6M
- 12.43%
- 1Y
- 28.28%
- 3Y*
- 19.17%
- 5Y*
- 10.98%
- 10Y*
- —
BBHL
- 1D
- 0.94%
- 1M
- 4.01%
- YTD
- 6.39%
- 6M
- 6.61%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
KRMA vs. BBHL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
KRMA Global X Conscious Companies ETF | 12.23% | 3.74% |
BBHL BBH Select Large Cap ETF | 6.39% | 2.72% |
Correlation
The correlation between KRMA and BBHL is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 18, 2025 | 0.91 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
KRMA vs. BBHL — Risk / Return Rank
KRMA
BBHL
KRMA vs. BBHL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Conscious Companies ETF (KRMA) and BBH Select Large Cap ETF (BBHL). 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.
| KRMA | BBHL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.41 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.29 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.96 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| KRMA | BBHL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.31 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.64 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.76 | 1.41 | -0.66 |
Drawdowns
KRMA vs. BBHL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum KRMA drawdown since its inception was -36.16%, which is greater than BBHL's maximum drawdown of -11.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KRMA and BBHL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| KRMA | BBHL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -36.16% | -11.99% | -24.17% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.62% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.41% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -26.12% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.65% | 0.00% | -0.65% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.91% | -2.98% | -1.93% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.03% | — | — |
Volatility
KRMA vs. BBHL - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| KRMA | BBHL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.07% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.34% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.30% | 12.71% | -0.41% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.18% | 12.71% | +4.47% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.50% | 12.71% | +5.79% |
KRMA vs. BBHL - Expense Ratio Comparison
KRMA has a 0.43% expense ratio, which is lower than BBHL's 0.71% expense ratio.
Dividends
KRMA vs. BBHL - Dividend Comparison
KRMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.31%, while BBHL has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BBHL BBH Select Large Cap ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
KRMA Global X Conscious Companies ETF | 2.31% | 2.59% | 0.91% | 1.16% | 0.86% | 1.07% | 0.96% | 1.52% | 1.82% | 1.21% | 0.96% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.91, KRMA and BBHL 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.
On fees, KRMA is cheaper at 0.43% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
KRMA is cheaper with a 0.43% expense ratio, compared with 0.71% for BBHL.
KRMA has the higher dividend yield at 2.31%, compared with 0.00% for BBHL.
KRMA tracks Concinnity Conscious Companies Index GTR Index, while BBHL tracks Actively Managed. They also come from different issuers: Global X and BBH. Their fees differ too: 0.43% for KRMA and 0.71% for BBHL.
Find the right allocation for KRMA and BBHL
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer