ONOF vs. ELM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ONOF (Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF) and ELM (Elm Market Navigator ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. ONOF is passively managed, while ELM is actively managed. Over the past year, ONOF returned 23.60% vs 19.85% for ELM. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ONOF charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.24%/yr for ELM.

Performance

ONOF vs. ELM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF (ONOF) and Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM). 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 ONOF having a 7.32% return and ELM slightly higher at 7.56%.

ONOF

• 1D: -0.68%
• 1M: 5.26%
• YTD: 7.32%
• 6M: 7.29%
• 1Y: 23.60%
• 3Y*: 13.72%
• 5Y*: 9.34%
• 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)

ONOF vs. ELM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ONOF Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF	7.32%	5.05%
ELM Elm Market Navigator ETF	7.56%	11.89%

Correlation

The correlation between ONOF and ELM is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 12, 2025	0.75

The correlation between ONOF and ELM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

ONOF vs. ELM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ONOF	ELM
Technology	35.6%	22.0%
Communication Services	11.6%	6.6%
Financial Services	11.5%	18.3%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	9.1%
Healthcare	8.6%	8.3%
Industrials	8.3%	12.6%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	5.2%
Energy	3.6%	4.8%
Utilities	2.3%	3.0%
Basic Materials	1.8%	5.4%
Real Estate	1.8%	4.7%

Return for Risk

ONOF vs. ELM — Risk / Return Rank

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

ONOF

ONOF Risk / Return Rank: 64
ONOF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
ONOF Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
ONOF Omega Ratio Rank: 61
ONOF Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
ONOF Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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.

ONOF vs. ELM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF (ONOF) 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.

	ONOF	ELM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	2.13	-0.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.86	3.00	-0.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.40	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.45	2.65	+0.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.88	11.00	+0.88
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ONOF vs. ELM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ONOF Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is comparable to the ELM Sharpe Ratio of 2.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ONOF 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

	ONOF	ELM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.11	2.13	-0.02
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.66	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.74	1.49	-0.75

Drawdowns

ONOF vs. ELM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ONOF drawdown since its inception was -26.21%, which is greater than ELM's maximum drawdown of -9.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ONOF and ELM.

Drawdown Indicators

	ONOF	ELM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.21%	-9.02%	-17.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.86%	-7.52%	+0.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.67%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.21%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.68%	-0.58%	-0.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.15%	-1.32%	-4.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.99%	1.81%	+0.18%

Volatility

ONOF vs. ELM - Volatility Comparison

Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF (ONOF) has a higher volatility of 3.03% compared to Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM) at 2.59%. This indicates that ONOF'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

	ONOF	ELM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.03%	2.59%	+0.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.95%	7.52%	+0.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.25%	9.38%	+1.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.30%	10.27%	+4.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.33%	10.27%	+4.06%

ONOF vs. ELM - Expense Ratio Comparison

ONOF has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than ELM's 0.24% expense ratio.

Dividends

ONOF vs. ELM - Dividend Comparison

ONOF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.29%, less 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%
ONOF Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF	1.29%	1.38%	0.93%	1.37%	1.92%	0.69%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ONOF and ELM in my portfolio?

ONOF and ELM have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ONOF or ELM?

ONOF has higher volatility (3.03%) compared to ELM (2.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ONOF dropped -26.21% vs ELM's -9.02%.

Which ETF is better, ONOF or ELM?

On 1-year performance, ONOF leads with 23.60% 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, ONOF or ELM?

Over the 1-year period, ONOF has performed better with a 23.60% return vs 19.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ONOF or ELM?

ELM is cheaper with a 0.24% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for ONOF.

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

ELM has the higher dividend yield at 2.52%, compared with 1.29% for ONOF.

What is the main difference between ONOF and ELM?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Elm. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ONOF and 0.24% for ELM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ELM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 vs 2.11), 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.