RGLO vs. FAAR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RGLO (Russell Investments Global Equity ETF) and FAAR (First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RGLO is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Russell, while FAAR is a Commodities fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RGLO returned 25.76% vs 28.33% for FAAR. At a correlation of -0.07, they often move in opposite directions. RGLO charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for FAAR.

Performance

RGLO vs. FAAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Russell Investments Global Equity ETF (RGLO) and First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RGLO achieves a 7.83% return, which is significantly lower than FAAR's 19.14% return.

RGLO

• 1D: -1.72%
• 1M: -1.18%
• YTD: 7.83%
• 6M: 7.43%
• 1Y: 25.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FAAR

• 1D: -0.91%
• 1M: -5.21%
• YTD: 19.14%
• 6M: 18.06%
• 1Y: 28.33%
• 3Y*: 10.57%
• 5Y*: 7.72%
• 10Y*: 4.69%

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

RGLO vs. FAAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RGLO Russell Investments Global Equity ETF	7.83%	17.96%
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF	19.14%	12.73%

Correlation

The correlation between RGLO and FAAR is -0.04, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 30, 2025	-0.07

Return for Risk

RGLO vs. FAAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

RGLO

RGLO Risk / Return Rank: 65
RGLO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
RGLO Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
RGLO Omega Ratio Rank: 65
RGLO Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
RGLO Martin Ratio Rank: 71

FAAR

FAAR Risk / Return Rank: 75
FAAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
FAAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
FAAR Omega Ratio Rank: 65
FAAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
FAAR Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

RGLO vs. FAAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Russell Investments Global Equity ETF (RGLO) and First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR). 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.

	RGLO	FAAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.95	2.15	-0.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.71	3.09	-0.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.37	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.69	4.52	-1.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.84	15.18	-3.34

RGLO vs. FAAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RGLO Sharpe Ratio is 1.95, which is comparable to the FAAR Sharpe Ratio of 2.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RGLO and FAAR, 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

RGLO vs. FAAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RGLO drawdown since its inception was -9.61%, smaller than the maximum FAAR drawdown of -18.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RGLO and FAAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	RGLO	FAAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.61%	-18.03%	+8.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.61%	-6.29%	-3.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-11.54%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.03%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-18.03%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.08%	-6.29%	+3.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.20%	-7.82%	+6.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.18%	1.87%	+0.31%

Volatility

RGLO vs. FAAR - Volatility Comparison

Russell Investments Global Equity ETF (RGLO) has a higher volatility of 4.79% compared to First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR) at 2.55%. This indicates that RGLO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FAAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RGLO	FAAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.79%	2.55%	+2.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.70%	9.68%	+1.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.27%	13.38%	-0.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.10%	12.96%	+0.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.10%	11.54%	+1.56%

RGLO vs. FAAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

RGLO has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than FAAR's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

RGLO vs. FAAR - Dividend Comparison

RGLO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.59%, less than FAAR's 9.66% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF	9.66%	11.63%	3.45%	3.20%	5.82%	6.49%	3.05%	1.02%	0.58%	2.83%
RGLO Russell Investments Global Equity ETF	0.59%	0.63%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RGLO and FAAR in my portfolio?

RGLO and FAAR have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RGLO or FAAR?

RGLO has higher volatility (4.79%) compared to FAAR (2.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RGLO dropped -9.61% vs FAAR's -18.03%.

Which ETF is better, RGLO or FAAR?

On 1-year performance, FAAR leads with 28.33% vs 25.76% for RGLO. On fees, RGLO is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, FAAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RGLO or FAAR?

Over the 1-year period, FAAR has performed better with a 28.33% return vs 25.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RGLO or FAAR?

RGLO is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for FAAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RGLO or FAAR?

FAAR has the higher dividend yield at 9.66%, compared with 0.59% for RGLO.

What is the main difference between RGLO and FAAR?

RGLO is categorized as Global Equities, while FAAR is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Russell and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for RGLO and 0.95% for FAAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FAAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.15 vs 1.95), 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.