MCSE vs. EFAS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MCSE (Martin Currie Sustainable International Equity ETF) and EFAS (Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. MCSE is actively managed, while EFAS is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MCSE returned -0.32%/yr vs 24.47%/yr for EFAS. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MCSE charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.56%/yr for EFAS.

Performance

MCSE vs. EFAS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Martin Currie Sustainable International Equity ETF (MCSE) and Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MCSE achieves a 1.12% return, which is significantly lower than EFAS's 12.96% return.

MCSE

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 1.12%
• 6M: 0.84%
• 1Y: 2.20%
• 3Y*: -0.32%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EFAS

• 1D: -0.58%
• 1M: -0.80%
• YTD: 12.96%
• 6M: 17.29%
• 1Y: 28.68%
• 3Y*: 24.47%
• 5Y*: 12.04%
• 10Y*: —

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

MCSE vs. EFAS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
MCSE Martin Currie Sustainable International Equity ETF	1.12%	7.79%	-9.46%	14.86%	11.00%
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	12.96%	46.83%	3.07%	14.65%	15.65%

Correlation

The correlation between MCSE and EFAS is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2022	0.49

The correlation between MCSE and EFAS shifts across timeframes, from 0.34 (1 year) to 0.49 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MCSE vs. EFAS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MCSE	EFAS
Technology	31.1%	0.1%
Healthcare	20.1%	0.1%
Industrials	18.1%	9.9%
Consumer Cyclical	13.8%	1.9%
Basic Materials	5.1%	1.8%
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	8.1%
Communication Services	4.7%	8.6%
Financial Services	2.1%	30.1%
Energy	-	13.7%
Real Estate	-	11.3%
Utilities	-	14.4%

Return for Risk

MCSE vs. EFAS — Risk / Return Rank

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

MCSE

MCSE Risk / Return Rank: 12
MCSE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
MCSE Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
MCSE Omega Ratio Rank: 12
MCSE Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
MCSE Martin Ratio Rank: 12

EFAS

EFAS Risk / Return Rank: 81
EFAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
EFAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
EFAS Omega Ratio Rank: 78
EFAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
EFAS Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

MCSE vs. EFAS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Martin Currie Sustainable International Equity ETF (MCSE) and Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS). 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.

	MCSE	EFAS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.20	2.73	-2.53
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.35	3.83	-3.48
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.05	1.47	-0.42
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.23	5.44	-5.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.56	14.48	-13.92
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MCSE vs. EFAS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCSE Sharpe Ratio is 0.20, which is lower than the EFAS Sharpe Ratio of 2.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCSE and EFAS, 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

	MCSE	EFAS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.20	2.73	-2.53
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.78	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.35	0.56	-0.21

Drawdowns

MCSE vs. EFAS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCSE drawdown since its inception was -26.36%, smaller than the maximum EFAS drawdown of -44.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCSE and EFAS.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCSE	EFAS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.36%	-44.38%	+18.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.42%	-5.30%	-5.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.36%	-11.84%	-14.52%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-28.81%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.51%	-3.01%	-7.50%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.73%	-7.08%	-1.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.10%	1.99%	+2.11%

Volatility

MCSE vs. EFAS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Martin Currie Sustainable International Equity ETF (MCSE) is 0.00%, while Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) has a volatility of 2.96%. This indicates that MCSE experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EFAS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MCSE	EFAS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.00%	2.96%	-2.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.17%	8.20%	-2.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.39%	10.60%	+1.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.52%	15.59%	+3.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.52%	18.33%	+1.19%

MCSE vs. EFAS - Expense Ratio Comparison

MCSE has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than EFAS's 0.56% expense ratio.

Dividends

MCSE vs. EFAS - Dividend Comparison

MCSE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.74%, less than EFAS's 5.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	5.05%	4.83%	6.76%	6.33%	7.28%	5.19%	4.34%	5.75%	6.63%	6.15%	0.21%
MCSE Martin Currie Sustainable International Equity ETF	3.74%	3.78%	0.63%	0.57%	0.48%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MCSE and EFAS in my portfolio?

MCSE and EFAS have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MCSE or EFAS?

EFAS has higher volatility (2.96%) compared to MCSE (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCSE dropped -26.36% vs EFAS's -44.38%.

Which ETF is better, MCSE or EFAS?

On 3-year performance, EFAS leads with 24.47% vs -0.32% for MCSE. On fees, EFAS is cheaper at 0.56% per year. On volatility, MCSE has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MCSE or EFAS?

Over the 3-year period, EFAS has performed better with a 24.47% return vs -0.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MCSE or EFAS?

EFAS is cheaper with a 0.56% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for MCSE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MCSE or EFAS?

EFAS has the higher dividend yield at 5.05%, compared with 3.74% for MCSE.

What is the main difference between MCSE and EFAS?

They also come from different issuers: Martin Currie and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for MCSE and 0.56% for EFAS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EFAS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.73 vs 0.20), 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.