LENS vs. FGSM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LENS (Sarmaya Thematic ETF) and FGSM (Frontier Asset Global Small Cap Equity ETF) are both Global Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LENS returned 61.82% vs 32.27% for FGSM. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LENS charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for FGSM.

Performance

LENS vs. FGSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Sarmaya Thematic ETF (LENS) and Frontier Asset Global Small Cap Equity ETF (FGSM). 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 LENS having a 13.33% return and FGSM slightly higher at 13.99%.

LENS

• 1D: -1.54%
• 1M: -1.68%
• YTD: 13.33%
• 6M: 18.33%
• 1Y: 61.82%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FGSM

• 1D: -0.71%
• 1M: 2.97%
• YTD: 13.99%
• 6M: 14.77%
• 1Y: 32.27%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LENS vs. FGSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LENS Sarmaya Thematic ETF	13.33%	56.21%
FGSM Frontier Asset Global Small Cap Equity ETF	13.99%	18.50%

Correlation

The correlation between LENS and FGSM is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 30, 2025	0.43

Return for Risk

LENS vs. FGSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

LENS

LENS Risk / Return Rank: 67
LENS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
LENS Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
LENS Omega Ratio Rank: 68
LENS Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
LENS Martin Ratio Rank: 58

FGSM

FGSM Risk / Return Rank: 68
FGSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
FGSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
FGSM Omega Ratio Rank: 64
FGSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
FGSM Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

LENS vs. FGSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Sarmaya Thematic ETF (LENS) and Frontier Asset Global Small Cap Equity ETF (FGSM). 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.

	LENS	FGSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.34	2.19	+0.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.70	3.11	-0.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.38	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.02	3.29	+0.72
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.02	12.79	-2.77
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LENS vs. FGSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LENS Sharpe Ratio is 2.34, which is comparable to the FGSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LENS and FGSM, 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

	LENS	FGSM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.34	2.19	+0.15
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.09	1.44	+0.65

Drawdowns

LENS vs. FGSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LENS drawdown since its inception was -15.47%, smaller than the maximum FGSM drawdown of -17.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LENS and FGSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	LENS	FGSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.47%	-17.72%	+2.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.47%	-9.84%	-5.63%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.64%	-0.80%	-12.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.71%	-2.21%	-1.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.19%	2.53%	+3.66%

Volatility

LENS vs. FGSM - Volatility Comparison

Sarmaya Thematic ETF (LENS) has a higher volatility of 6.16% compared to Frontier Asset Global Small Cap Equity ETF (FGSM) at 4.40%. This indicates that LENS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FGSM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LENS	FGSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.16%	4.40%	+1.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.07%	11.03%	+11.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.54%	14.80%	+11.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.49%	17.81%	+7.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.49%	17.81%	+7.68%

LENS vs. FGSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

LENS has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than FGSM's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

LENS vs. FGSM - Dividend Comparison

LENS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.41%, more than FGSM's 1.36% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
FGSM Frontier Asset Global Small Cap Equity ETF	1.36%	1.56%
LENS Sarmaya Thematic ETF	1.41%	1.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LENS and FGSM in my portfolio?

LENS and FGSM have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LENS or FGSM?

LENS has higher volatility (6.16%) compared to FGSM (4.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LENS dropped -15.47% vs FGSM's -17.72%.

Which ETF is better, LENS or FGSM?

On 1-year performance, LENS leads with 61.82% vs 32.27% for FGSM. On fees, LENS is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, FGSM has been the lower-risk option at 4.40%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LENS or FGSM?

Over the 1-year period, LENS has performed better with a 61.82% return vs 32.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LENS or FGSM?

LENS is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for FGSM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LENS or FGSM?

LENS has the higher dividend yield at 1.41%, compared with 1.36% for FGSM.

What is the main difference between LENS and FGSM?

They also come from different issuers: Sarmaya Partners and Frontier. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for LENS and 0.90% for FGSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LENS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.34 vs 2.19), 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.