NTSI vs. ELM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NTSI (WisdomTree International Efficient Core Fund) and ELM (Elm Market Navigator ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NTSI is a Global Allocation fund actively managed by WisdomTree, while ELM is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by Elm. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, NTSI returned 20.90% vs 19.85% for ELM. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NTSI charges 0.26%/yr vs 0.24%/yr for ELM.

Performance

NTSI vs. ELM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in WisdomTree International Efficient Core Fund (NTSI) and Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NTSI achieves a 7.18% return, which is significantly lower than ELM's 7.56% return.

NTSI

• 1D: -0.63%
• 1M: 3.92%
• YTD: 7.18%
• 6M: 8.77%
• 1Y: 20.90%
• 3Y*: 14.26%
• 5Y*: 5.55%
• 10Y*: —

ELM

• 1D: -0.58%
• 1M: 2.88%
• YTD: 7.56%
• 6M: 8.51%
• 1Y: 19.85%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NTSI vs. ELM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NTSI WisdomTree International Efficient Core Fund	7.18%	22.92%
ELM Elm Market Navigator ETF	7.56%	11.89%

Correlation

The correlation between NTSI and ELM is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 12, 2025	0.83

The correlation between NTSI and ELM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

NTSI vs. ELM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NTSI	ELM
Financial Services	25.0%	18.3%
Industrials	17.5%	12.6%
Technology	10.6%	22.0%
Healthcare	10.5%	8.3%
Consumer Cyclical	8.1%	9.1%
Consumer Defensive	7.4%	5.2%
Basic Materials	6.7%	5.4%
Energy	4.8%	4.8%
Communication Services	4.7%	6.6%
Utilities	3.2%	3.0%
Real Estate	1.5%	4.7%

Return for Risk

NTSI vs. ELM — Risk / Return Rank

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

NTSI

NTSI Risk / Return Rank: 37
NTSI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
NTSI Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
NTSI Omega Ratio Rank: 38
NTSI Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
NTSI Martin Ratio Rank: 39

ELM

ELM Risk / Return Rank: 63
ELM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
ELM Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
ELM Omega Ratio Rank: 67
ELM Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
ELM Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

NTSI vs. ELM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WisdomTree International Efficient Core Fund (NTSI) and Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM). 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.

	NTSI	ELM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.41	2.13	-0.72
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.98	3.00	-1.02
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.40	-0.15
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.70	2.65	-0.95
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	6.22	11.00	-4.78
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NTSI vs. ELM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NTSI Sharpe Ratio is 1.41, which is lower than the ELM Sharpe Ratio of 2.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NTSI and ELM, 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

	NTSI	ELM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.41	2.13	-0.72
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.36	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.38	1.49	-1.11

Drawdowns

NTSI vs. ELM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NTSI drawdown since its inception was -34.01%, which is greater than ELM's maximum drawdown of -9.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NTSI and ELM.

Drawdown Indicators

	NTSI	ELM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.01%	-9.02%	-24.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.33%	-7.52%	-4.81%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.69%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.01%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.36%	-0.58%	-1.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.19%	-1.32%	-7.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.37%	1.81%	+1.56%

Volatility

NTSI vs. ELM - Volatility Comparison

WisdomTree International Efficient Core Fund (NTSI) has a higher volatility of 4.84% compared to Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM) at 2.59%. This indicates that NTSI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ELM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NTSI	ELM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.84%	2.59%	+2.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.60%	7.52%	+5.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.95%	9.38%	+5.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.68%	10.27%	+5.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.63%	10.27%	+5.36%

NTSI vs. ELM - Expense Ratio Comparison

NTSI has a 0.26% expense ratio, which is higher than ELM's 0.24% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

NTSI vs. ELM - Dividend Comparison

NTSI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.51%, more than ELM's 2.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ELM Elm Market Navigator ETF	2.52%	2.71%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
NTSI WisdomTree International Efficient Core Fund	3.51%	3.65%	2.92%	2.35%	2.66%	0.97%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NTSI and ELM in my portfolio?

NTSI and ELM have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NTSI or ELM?

NTSI has higher volatility (4.84%) compared to ELM (2.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NTSI dropped -34.01% vs ELM's -9.02%.

Which ETF is better, NTSI or ELM?

On 1-year performance, NTSI leads with 20.90% vs 19.85% for ELM. On fees, ELM is cheaper at 0.24% per year. On volatility, ELM has been the lower-risk option at 2.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NTSI or ELM?

Over the 1-year period, NTSI has performed better with a 20.90% return vs 19.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NTSI or ELM?

ELM is cheaper with a 0.24% expense ratio, compared with 0.26% for NTSI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NTSI or ELM?

NTSI has the higher dividend yield at 3.51%, compared with 2.52% for ELM.

What is the main difference between NTSI and ELM?

NTSI is categorized as Global Allocation, while ELM is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: WisdomTree and Elm. Their fees differ too: 0.26% for NTSI and 0.24% for ELM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ELM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 vs 1.41), 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.