RODM vs. GMOI

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

RODM (Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF) and GMOI (GMO International Value ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds - RODM tracks the Hartford Risk-Optimized Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) Index while GMOI tracks the MSCI World ex USA Value. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, RODM returned 22.82% vs 33.28% for GMOI. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RODM charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for GMOI.

Performance

RODM vs. GMOI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF (RODM) and GMO International Value ETF (GMOI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RODM achieves a 9.95% return, which is significantly lower than GMOI's 10.90% return.

RODM

• 1D: -0.18%
• 1M: -1.99%
• YTD: 9.95%
• 6M: 9.50%
• 1Y: 22.82%
• 3Y*: 20.09%
• 5Y*: 9.54%
• 10Y*: 9.29%

GMOI

• 1D: -0.56%
• 1M: -2.31%
• YTD: 10.90%
• 6M: 10.45%
• 1Y: 33.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RODM vs. GMOI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RODM Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF	9.95%	34.42%	-2.61%
GMOI GMO International Value ETF	10.90%	45.64%	-4.48%

Correlation

The correlation between RODM and GMOI is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 29, 2024	0.89

The correlation between RODM and GMOI has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RODM vs. GMOI — Risk / Return Rank

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

RODM

RODM Risk / Return Rank: 74
RODM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
RODM Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
RODM Omega Ratio Rank: 74
RODM Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
RODM Martin Ratio Rank: 76

GMOI

GMOI Risk / Return Rank: 85
GMOI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
GMOI Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
GMOI Omega Ratio Rank: 83
GMOI Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
GMOI Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

RODM vs. GMOI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF (RODM) and GMO International Value ETF (GMOI). 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.

	RODM	GMOI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.10	2.50	-0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.98	3.47	-0.50
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.44	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.23	4.00	-0.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.73	15.67	-2.94

RODM vs. GMOI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RODM Sharpe Ratio is 2.10, which is comparable to the GMOI Sharpe Ratio of 2.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RODM and GMOI, 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

RODM vs. GMOI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RODM drawdown since its inception was -35.98%, which is greater than GMOI's maximum drawdown of -14.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RODM and GMOI.

Drawdown Indicators

	RODM	GMOI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.98%	-14.67%	-21.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.10%	-8.36%	+1.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.58%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.85%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.98%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.34%	-3.18%	+0.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.35%	-1.69%	-4.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.80%	2.13%	-0.33%

Volatility

RODM vs. GMOI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF (RODM) is 3.21%, while GMO International Value ETF (GMOI) has a volatility of 4.00%. This indicates that RODM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GMOI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RODM	GMOI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.21%	4.00%	-0.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.76%	10.69%	-1.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.94%	13.41%	-2.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.45%	15.56%	-2.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.07%	15.56%	-0.49%

RODM vs. GMOI - Expense Ratio Comparison

RODM has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than GMOI's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

RODM vs. GMOI - Dividend Comparison

RODM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.83%, more than GMOI's 2.47% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GMOI GMO International Value ETF	2.47%	2.74%	0.54%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RODM Hartford Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) ETF	2.83%	3.11%	4.09%	4.42%	3.81%	4.41%	2.82%	2.82%	2.03%	2.24%	3.19%	2.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RODM and GMOI in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, RODM and GMOI 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, RODM or GMOI?

GMOI has higher volatility (4.00%) compared to RODM (3.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RODM dropped -35.98% vs GMOI's -14.67%.

Which ETF is better, RODM or GMOI?

On 1-year performance, GMOI leads with 33.28% vs 22.82% for RODM. On fees, RODM is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, RODM has been the lower-risk option at 3.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RODM or GMOI?

Over the 1-year period, GMOI has performed better with a 33.28% return vs 22.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RODM or GMOI?

RODM is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GMOI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RODM or GMOI?

RODM has the higher dividend yield at 2.83%, compared with 2.47% for GMOI.

What is the main difference between RODM and GMOI?

RODM tracks Hartford Risk-Optimized Multifactor Developed Markets (ex-US) Index, while GMOI tracks MSCI World ex USA Value. They also come from different issuers: Hartford and GMO. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for RODM and 0.60% for GMOI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GMOI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.50 vs 2.10), 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.