NZAC vs. GLOF

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

NZAC (SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF) and GLOF (iShares Global Equity Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds - NZAC tracks the MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned Index while GLOF tracks the STOXX Global Equity Factor Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, NZAC returned 12.25%/yr vs 12.29%/yr for GLOF. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NZAC charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for GLOF.

Performance

NZAC vs. GLOF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) and iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NZAC achieves a 9.73% return, which is significantly lower than GLOF's 13.19% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with NZAC having a 12.25% annualized return and GLOF not far ahead at 12.29%.

NZAC

• 1D: 0.56%
• 1M: 4.72%
• YTD: 9.73%
• 6M: 10.87%
• 1Y: 26.10%
• 3Y*: 19.38%
• 5Y*: 10.26%
• 10Y*: 12.25%

GLOF

• 1D: -0.77%
• 1M: 5.15%
• YTD: 13.19%
• 6M: 14.18%
• 1Y: 30.42%
• 3Y*: 22.67%
• 5Y*: 11.56%
• 10Y*: 12.29%

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

NZAC vs. GLOF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
NZAC SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF	9.73%	20.55%	16.67%	23.22%	-19.77%	18.35%	17.21%	28.24%	-9.80%	22.93%
GLOF iShares Global Equity Factor ETF	13.19%	23.92%	17.49%	22.38%	-16.97%	18.68%	10.00%	23.21%	-13.70%	29.86%

Correlation

The correlation between NZAC and GLOF is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2015	0.85

The correlation between NZAC and GLOF shifts across timeframes, from 0.85 (all time) to 0.96 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

NZAC vs. GLOF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NZAC	GLOF
Technology	34.3%	28.8%
Financial Services	13.1%	16.7%
Communication Services	8.5%	8.7%
Consumer Cyclical	8.2%	10.7%
Healthcare	7.8%	8.2%
Industrials	7.3%	9.3%
Real Estate	5.2%	1.1%
Basic Materials	1.9%	3.3%
Utilities	1.4%	3.1%
Energy	1.2%	4.4%
Consumer Defensive	1.0%	5.7%

Return for Risk

NZAC vs. GLOF — Risk / Return Rank

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

NZAC

NZAC Risk / Return Rank: 58
NZAC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
NZAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
NZAC Omega Ratio Rank: 58
NZAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
NZAC Martin Ratio Rank: 62

GLOF

GLOF Risk / Return Rank: 73
GLOF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
GLOF Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
GLOF Omega Ratio Rank: 71
GLOF Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
GLOF Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

NZAC vs. GLOF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) and iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF). 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.

	NZAC	GLOF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.03	2.43	-0.40
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.85	3.41	-0.56
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.43	-0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.61	3.38	-0.77
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.35	15.08	-3.73
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NZAC vs. GLOF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NZAC Sharpe Ratio is 2.03, which is comparable to the GLOF Sharpe Ratio of 2.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NZAC and GLOF, 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

	NZAC	GLOF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.03	2.43	-0.40
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.61	0.74	-0.13
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.72	0.72	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.62	0.60	+0.02

Drawdowns

NZAC vs. GLOF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NZAC drawdown since its inception was -33.72%, roughly equal to the maximum GLOF drawdown of -34.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NZAC and GLOF.

Drawdown Indicators

	NZAC	GLOF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.72%	-34.12%	+0.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.10%	-9.05%	-1.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.19%	-16.12%	-0.07%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.31%	-25.15%	-3.16%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.72%	-34.12%	+0.40%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.77%	+0.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.32%	-6.12%	+0.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.32%	2.02%	+0.30%

Volatility

NZAC vs. GLOF - Volatility Comparison

SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) and iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF) have volatilities of 3.66% and 3.65%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NZAC	GLOF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.66%	3.65%	+0.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.33%	10.10%	+0.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.91%	12.57%	+0.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.81%	15.69%	+1.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.14%	17.17%	-0.03%

NZAC vs. GLOF - Expense Ratio Comparison

NZAC has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than GLOF's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

NZAC vs. GLOF - Dividend Comparison

NZAC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.02%, more than GLOF's 1.50% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GLOF iShares Global Equity Factor ETF	1.50%	1.70%	2.59%	2.51%	2.53%	1.90%	1.73%	2.41%	2.03%	1.94%	1.94%	0.92%
NZAC SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF	2.02%	1.90%	1.88%	1.65%	1.81%	1.62%	1.59%	2.17%	2.53%	2.20%	2.00%	2.40%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NZAC and GLOF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, NZAC and GLOF 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.

Which is riskier, NZAC or GLOF?

NZAC has higher volatility (3.66%) compared to GLOF (3.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NZAC dropped -33.72% vs GLOF's -34.12%.

Which ETF is better, NZAC or GLOF?

On 10-year performance, GLOF leads with 12.29% vs 12.25% for NZAC. On fees, NZAC is cheaper at 0.12% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NZAC or GLOF?

Over the 10-year period, GLOF has performed better with a 12.29% return vs 12.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NZAC or GLOF?

NZAC is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for GLOF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NZAC or GLOF?

NZAC has the higher dividend yield at 2.02%, compared with 1.50% for GLOF.

What is the main difference between NZAC and GLOF?

NZAC tracks MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned Index, while GLOF tracks STOXX Global Equity Factor Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for NZAC and 0.20% for GLOF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLOF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.43 vs 2.03), 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.