RGLO vs. KLMT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RGLO (Russell Investments Global Equity ETF) and KLMT (Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF) are both Global Equities funds. RGLO is actively managed, while KLMT is passively managed. Over the past year, RGLO returned 28.28% vs 27.86% for KLMT. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RGLO charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for KLMT.

Performance

RGLO vs. KLMT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Russell Investments Global Equity ETF (RGLO) and Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RGLO achieves a 10.04% return, which is significantly lower than KLMT's 12.04% return.

RGLO

• 1D: -0.80%
• 1M: 4.54%
• YTD: 10.04%
• 6M: 11.57%
• 1Y: 28.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

KLMT

• 1D: -0.78%
• 1M: 5.23%
• YTD: 12.04%
• 6M: 12.88%
• 1Y: 27.86%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RGLO vs. KLMT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RGLO Russell Investments Global Equity ETF	10.04%	17.37%
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	12.04%	14.99%

Correlation

The correlation between RGLO and KLMT is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 2, 2025	0.93

The correlation between RGLO and KLMT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RGLO vs. KLMT — Risk / Return Rank

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

RGLO

RGLO Risk / Return Rank: 68
RGLO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
RGLO Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
RGLO Omega Ratio Rank: 68
RGLO Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
RGLO Martin Ratio Rank: 72

KLMT

KLMT Risk / Return Rank: 67
KLMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
KLMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
KLMT Omega Ratio Rank: 67
KLMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
KLMT Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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. KLMT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Russell Investments Global Equity ETF (RGLO) and Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT). 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.

	RGLO	KLMT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.23	2.22	+0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.09	3.10	0.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.40	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.96	2.93	+0.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.33	12.75	+0.58
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RGLO vs. KLMT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RGLO Sharpe Ratio is 2.23, which is comparable to the KLMT Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RGLO and KLMT, 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

	RGLO	KLMT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.23	2.22	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.29	1.28	+1.01

Drawdowns

RGLO vs. KLMT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RGLO drawdown since its inception was -9.61%, smaller than the maximum KLMT drawdown of -16.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RGLO and KLMT.

Drawdown Indicators

	RGLO	KLMT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.61%	-16.87%	+7.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.61%	-9.54%	-0.07%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.10%	-0.78%	-0.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.16%	-1.91%	+0.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.13%	2.19%	-0.06%

Volatility

RGLO vs. KLMT - Volatility Comparison

Russell Investments Global Equity ETF (RGLO) and Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT) have volatilities of 3.65% and 3.76%, 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

	RGLO	KLMT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.65%	3.76%	-0.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.90%	10.07%	-0.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.72%	12.61%	+0.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.69%	15.85%	-3.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.69%	15.85%	-3.16%

RGLO vs. KLMT - Expense Ratio Comparison

RGLO has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than KLMT's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

RGLO vs. KLMT - Dividend Comparison

RGLO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.58%, less than KLMT's 1.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	1.75%	1.95%	0.85%
RGLO Russell Investments Global Equity ETF	0.58%	0.63%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RGLO and KLMT in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, RGLO and KLMT 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, RGLO or KLMT?

KLMT has higher volatility (3.76%) compared to RGLO (3.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RGLO dropped -9.61% vs KLMT's -16.87%.

Which ETF is better, RGLO or KLMT?

On 1-year performance, RGLO leads with 28.28% vs 27.86% for KLMT. On fees, KLMT is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, RGLO has been the lower-risk option at 3.65%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RGLO or KLMT?

Over the 1-year period, RGLO has performed better with a 28.28% return vs 27.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RGLO or KLMT?

KLMT is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for RGLO.

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

KLMT has the higher dividend yield at 1.75%, compared with 0.58% for RGLO.

What is the main difference between RGLO and KLMT?

They also come from different issuers: Russell and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for RGLO and 0.10% for KLMT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RGLO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs 2.22), 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.