RING vs. EFAS

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

RING (iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF) and EFAS (Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RING is a Gold fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Select Gold Miners Investable Market Index, while EFAS is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the MSCI EAFE Top 50 Dividend Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RING returned 18.76%/yr vs 12.41%/yr for EFAS. At a 0.27 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RING charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.56%/yr for EFAS.

Performance

RING vs. EFAS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF (RING) 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, RING achieves a -5.54% return, which is significantly lower than EFAS's 15.45% return.

RING

• 1D: 3.20%
• 1M: -14.81%
• YTD: -5.54%
• 6M: -4.18%
• 1Y: 54.08%
• 3Y*: 44.87%
• 5Y*: 18.76%
• 10Y*: 13.85%

EFAS

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: 0.53%
• YTD: 15.45%
• 6M: 18.87%
• 1Y: 29.12%
• 3Y*: 25.18%
• 5Y*: 12.41%
• 10Y*: —

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

RING vs. EFAS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RING iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF	-5.54%	164.72%	15.98%	12.29%	-15.40%	-7.46%	24.98%	49.92%	-13.14%	10.24%
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	15.45%	46.83%	3.07%	14.65%	-8.00%	12.75%	-5.42%	14.60%	-11.60%	22.76%

Correlation

The correlation between RING and EFAS is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.38
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.41
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2016	0.27

The correlation between RING and EFAS shifts across timeframes, from 0.27 (all time) to 0.41 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RING vs. EFAS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RING	EFAS
Basic Materials	100.0%	1.8%
Communication Services	-	8.6%
Consumer Cyclical	-	1.9%
Consumer Defensive	-	8.1%
Energy	-	13.7%
Financial Services	-	30.1%
Healthcare	-	0.1%
Industrials	-	9.9%
Real Estate	-	11.3%
Technology	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	14.4%

Return for Risk

RING vs. EFAS — Risk / Return Rank

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

RING

RING Risk / Return Rank: 36
RING Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
RING Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
RING Omega Ratio Rank: 39
RING Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
RING Martin Ratio Rank: 33

EFAS

EFAS Risk / Return Rank: 89
EFAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
EFAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
EFAS Omega Ratio Rank: 88
EFAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
EFAS Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

RING vs. EFAS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF (RING) 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.

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.

	RING	EFAS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.20	2.75	-1.55
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.62	3.86	-2.24
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.48	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.59	5.64	-4.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.45	14.75	-10.29

RING vs. EFAS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RING Sharpe Ratio is 1.20, which is lower than the EFAS Sharpe Ratio of 2.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RING 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.

Drawdowns

RING vs. EFAS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RING drawdown since its inception was -79.47%, which is greater than EFAS's maximum drawdown of -44.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RING and EFAS.

Drawdown Indicators

	RING	EFAS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.47%	-44.38%	-35.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-35.72%	-5.30%	-30.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.72%	-11.84%	-23.88%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-47.94%	-28.81%	-19.13%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-52.04%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-30.03%	-0.87%	-29.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-47.36%	-7.06%	-40.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.74%	2.02%	+10.72%

Volatility

RING vs. EFAS - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF (RING) has a higher volatility of 16.83% compared to Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) at 3.35%. This indicates that RING'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

	RING	EFAS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.83%	3.35%	+13.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	39.11%	8.58%	+30.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	47.31%	10.87%	+36.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.81%	15.62%	+21.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	36.70%	18.32%	+18.38%

RING vs. EFAS - Expense Ratio Comparison

RING has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than EFAS's 0.56% expense ratio.

Dividends

RING vs. EFAS - Dividend Comparison

RING's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%, less than EFAS's 4.62% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	4.62%	4.83%	6.76%	6.33%	7.28%	5.19%	4.34%	5.75%	6.63%	6.15%	0.21%	0.00%
RING iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF	0.89%	0.84%	1.43%	2.01%	2.29%	2.38%	0.83%	0.83%	0.70%	0.42%	1.41%	0.96%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RING and EFAS in my portfolio?

RING and EFAS have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RING or EFAS?

RING has higher volatility (16.83%) compared to EFAS (3.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RING dropped -79.47% vs EFAS's -44.38%.

Which ETF is better, RING or EFAS?

On 5-year performance, RING leads with 18.76% vs 12.41% for EFAS. On fees, RING is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, EFAS has been the lower-risk option at 3.35%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RING or EFAS?

Over the 5-year period, RING has performed better with a 18.76% return vs 12.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RING or EFAS?

RING is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for EFAS.

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

EFAS has the higher dividend yield at 4.62%, compared with 0.89% for RING.

What is the main difference between RING and EFAS?

RING is categorized as Gold, while EFAS is Foreign Large Cap Equities. RING tracks MSCI ACWI Select Gold Miners Investable Market Index, while EFAS tracks MSCI EAFE Top 50 Dividend Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for RING and 0.56% for EFAS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EFAS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.75 vs 1.20), 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.