OSEA vs. EFAS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

OSEA (Harbor International Compounders ETF) and EFAS (Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. OSEA is actively managed, while EFAS is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, OSEA returned 7.38%/yr vs 24.47%/yr for EFAS. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. OSEA charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.56%/yr for EFAS.

Performance

OSEA vs. EFAS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Harbor International Compounders ETF (OSEA) 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, OSEA achieves a 0.79% return, which is significantly lower than EFAS's 12.96% return.

OSEA

• 1D: -0.88%
• 1M: 1.06%
• YTD: 0.79%
• 6M: 1.49%
• 1Y: 7.05%
• 3Y*: 7.38%
• 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)

OSEA vs. EFAS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
OSEA Harbor International Compounders ETF	0.79%	18.49%	-0.73%	20.88%	9.77%
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	12.96%	46.83%	3.07%	14.65%	10.24%

Correlation

The correlation between OSEA and EFAS is 0.51, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.51
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 9, 2022	0.61

The correlation between OSEA and EFAS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

OSEA vs. EFAS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	OSEA	EFAS
Technology	23.4%	0.1%
Industrials	20.6%	9.9%
Financial Services	14.5%	30.1%
Consumer Cyclical	11.6%	1.9%
Consumer Defensive	10.2%	8.1%
Healthcare	10.1%	0.1%
Communication Services	6.5%	8.6%
Basic Materials	5.8%	1.8%
Utilities	3.9%	14.4%
Energy	-	13.7%
Real Estate	-	11.3%

Return for Risk

OSEA vs. EFAS — Risk / Return Rank

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

OSEA

OSEA Risk / Return Rank: 17
OSEA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
OSEA Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
OSEA Omega Ratio Rank: 15
OSEA Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
OSEA Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.

OSEA vs. EFAS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Harbor International Compounders ETF (OSEA) 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.

	OSEA	EFAS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.47	2.73	-2.26
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.76	3.83	-3.07
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.47	-0.38
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.64	5.44	-4.80
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2.29	14.48	-12.19
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

OSEA vs. EFAS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current OSEA Sharpe Ratio is 0.47, which is lower than the EFAS Sharpe Ratio of 2.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of OSEA 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

	OSEA	EFAS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47	2.73	-2.26
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.78	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.78	0.56	+0.22

Drawdowns

OSEA vs. EFAS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum OSEA drawdown since its inception was -18.14%, smaller than the maximum EFAS drawdown of -44.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for OSEA and EFAS.

Drawdown Indicators

	OSEA	EFAS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.14%	-44.38%	+26.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.08%	-5.30%	-5.78%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.14%	-11.84%	-6.30%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-28.81%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.02%	-3.01%	-0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.82%	-7.08%	+3.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.09%	1.99%	+1.10%

Volatility

OSEA vs. EFAS - Volatility Comparison

Harbor International Compounders ETF (OSEA) has a higher volatility of 5.42% compared to Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) at 2.96%. This indicates that OSEA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EFAS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	OSEA	EFAS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.42%	2.96%	+2.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.05%	8.20%	+3.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.13%	10.60%	+4.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.62%	15.59%	+1.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.62%	18.33%	-1.71%

OSEA vs. EFAS - Expense Ratio Comparison

OSEA has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than EFAS's 0.56% expense ratio.

Dividends

OSEA vs. EFAS - Dividend Comparison

OSEA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.23%, 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%
OSEA Harbor International Compounders ETF	1.23%	1.24%	0.51%	0.65%	0.11%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both OSEA and EFAS in my portfolio?

OSEA and EFAS have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, OSEA or EFAS?

OSEA has higher volatility (5.42%) compared to EFAS (2.96%). In terms of maximum drawdown, OSEA dropped -18.14% vs EFAS's -44.38%.

Which ETF is better, OSEA or EFAS?

On 3-year performance, EFAS leads with 24.47% vs 7.38% for OSEA. On fees, OSEA is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, EFAS has been the lower-risk option at 2.96%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, OSEA or EFAS?

Over the 3-year period, EFAS has performed better with a 24.47% return vs 7.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, OSEA or EFAS?

OSEA is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for EFAS.

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

EFAS has the higher dividend yield at 5.05%, compared with 1.23% for OSEA.

What is the main difference between OSEA and EFAS?

They also come from different issuers: Harbor and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for OSEA and 0.56% for EFAS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EFAS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.73 vs 0.47), 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.