QLTI vs. CMDT

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

QLTI (GMO International Quality ETF) and CMDT (PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - QLTI is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund actively managed by GMO, while CMDT is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index. QLTI is actively managed, while CMDT is passively managed. Over the past year, QLTI returned 6.03% vs 21.34% for CMDT. At a 0.00 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. QLTI charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for CMDT.

Performance

QLTI vs. CMDT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GMO International Quality ETF (QLTI) and PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QLTI achieves a -0.68% return, which is significantly lower than CMDT's 13.43% return.

QLTI

• 1D: -0.60%
• 1M: 1.30%
• YTD: -0.68%
• 6M: -0.63%
• 1Y: 6.03%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CMDT

• 1D: -1.14%
• 1M: -8.86%
• YTD: 13.43%
• 6M: 13.42%
• 1Y: 21.34%
• 3Y*: 12.77%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QLTI vs. CMDT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QLTI GMO International Quality ETF	-0.68%	17.12%	-7.94%
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	13.43%	12.78%	0.64%

Correlation

The correlation between QLTI and CMDT is -0.12, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 29, 2024	0.00

The correlation between QLTI and CMDT shifts across timeframes, from -0.12 (1 year) to 0.00 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

QLTI vs. CMDT — Risk / Return Rank

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

QLTI

QLTI Risk / Return Rank: 14
QLTI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
QLTI Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
QLTI Omega Ratio Rank: 14
QLTI Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
QLTI Martin Ratio Rank: 15

CMDT

CMDT Risk / Return Rank: 50
CMDT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
CMDT Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
CMDT Omega Ratio Rank: 48
CMDT Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
CMDT Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

QLTI vs. CMDT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GMO International Quality ETF (QLTI) and PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	QLTI	CMDT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.39	1.71	-1.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.67	2.39	-1.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.29	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.44	1.93	-1.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.23	9.62	-8.39

QLTI vs. CMDT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QLTI Sharpe Ratio is 0.39, which is lower than the CMDT Sharpe Ratio of 1.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QLTI and CMDT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

QLTI vs. CMDT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QLTI drawdown since its inception was -14.82%, which is greater than CMDT's maximum drawdown of -11.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QLTI and CMDT.

Drawdown Indicators

	QLTI	CMDT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.82%	-11.11%	-3.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.72%	-11.11%	-2.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-11.11%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.11%	-11.11%	+5.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.82%	-2.77%	-1.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.90%	2.25%	+2.65%

Volatility

QLTI vs. CMDT - Volatility Comparison

GMO International Quality ETF (QLTI) has a higher volatility of 4.63% compared to PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT) at 3.26%. This indicates that QLTI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CMDT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QLTI	CMDT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.63%	3.26%	+1.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.82%	10.60%	+2.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.54%	12.65%	+2.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.73%	12.24%	+4.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.73%	12.24%	+4.49%

QLTI vs. CMDT - Expense Ratio Comparison

QLTI has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than CMDT's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

QLTI vs. CMDT - Dividend Comparison

QLTI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.52%, less than CMDT's 2.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	2.67%	3.04%	8.80%	2.71%
QLTI GMO International Quality ETF	0.52%	0.52%	0.19%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QLTI and CMDT in my portfolio?

QLTI and CMDT have a correlation of -0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QLTI or CMDT?

QLTI has higher volatility (4.63%) compared to CMDT (3.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QLTI dropped -14.82% vs CMDT's -11.11%.

Which ETF is better, QLTI or CMDT?

On 1-year performance, CMDT leads with 21.34% vs 6.03% for QLTI. On fees, QLTI is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, CMDT has been the lower-risk option at 3.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QLTI or CMDT?

Over the 1-year period, CMDT has performed better with a 21.34% return vs 6.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QLTI or CMDT?

QLTI is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for CMDT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QLTI or CMDT?

CMDT has the higher dividend yield at 2.67%, compared with 0.52% for QLTI.

What is the main difference between QLTI and CMDT?

QLTI is categorized as Foreign Large Cap Equities, while CMDT is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: GMO and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for QLTI and 0.65% for CMDT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CMDT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.71 vs 0.39), 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.