SFGV vs. GSWO
SFGV (Sequoia Global Value ETF) and GSWO (Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta World Equity ETF) are both Global Equities funds. SFGV is actively managed, while GSWO is passively managed. Over the past year, SFGV returned 25.44% vs 20.17% for GSWO. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SFGV charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for GSWO.
Performance
SFGV vs. GSWO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with SFGV having a 11.37% return and GSWO slightly lower at 11.00%.
SFGV
- 1D
- -0.38%
- 1M
- 3.27%
- YTD
- 11.37%
- 6M
- 11.60%
- 1Y
- 25.44%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
GSWO
- 1D
- -0.71%
- 1M
- 4.81%
- YTD
- 11.00%
- 6M
- 11.56%
- 1Y
- 20.17%
- 3Y*
- 18.70%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
SFGV vs. GSWO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
SFGV Sequoia Global Value ETF | 11.37% | 18.84% | 10.71% |
GSWO Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta World Equity ETF | 11.00% | 18.97% | 14.50% |
Correlation
The correlation between SFGV and GSWO is 0.81, 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 | 0.81 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 19, 2024 | 0.83 |
The correlation between SFGV and GSWO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
SFGV vs. GSWO — Risk / Return Rank
SFGV
GSWO
SFGV vs. GSWO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Sequoia Global Value ETF (SFGV) and Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta World Equity ETF (GSWO). 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.
| SFGV | GSWO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.21 | 1.88 | +0.32 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 3.17 | 2.77 | +0.40 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.39 | 1.35 | +0.05 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.06 | 2.27 | +0.79 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.43 | 10.87 | +0.57 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| SFGV | GSWO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.21 | 1.88 | +0.32 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.33 | 0.99 | +0.33 |
Drawdowns
SFGV vs. GSWO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SFGV drawdown since its inception was -14.51%, smaller than the maximum GSWO drawdown of -17.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SFGV and GSWO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SFGV | GSWO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.51% | -17.77% | +3.26% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.36% | -8.93% | +0.57% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -9.97% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.38% | -0.71% | +0.33% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.89% | -3.25% | +1.36% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.23% | 1.86% | +0.37% |
Volatility
SFGV vs. GSWO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Sequoia Global Value ETF (SFGV) is 2.95%, while Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta World Equity ETF (GSWO) has a volatility of 3.22%. This indicates that SFGV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GSWO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SFGV | GSWO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.95% | 3.22% | -0.27% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.62% | 9.02% | -0.40% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 11.58% | 10.75% | +0.83% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.26% | 12.96% | +0.30% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.26% | 12.96% | +0.30% |
SFGV vs. GSWO - Expense Ratio Comparison
SFGV has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is higher than GSWO's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
SFGV vs. GSWO - Dividend Comparison
SFGV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.25%, more than GSWO's 1.61% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GSWO Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta World Equity ETF | 1.61% | 1.74% | 1.75% | 2.06% | 1.73% |
SFGV Sequoia Global Value ETF | 2.25% | 2.52% | 2.23% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
SFGV and GSWO have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GSWO has higher volatility (3.22%) compared to SFGV (2.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SFGV dropped -14.51% vs GSWO's -17.77%.
On 1-year performance, SFGV leads with 25.44% vs 20.17% for GSWO. On fees, GSWO is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, SFGV has been the lower-risk option at 2.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, SFGV has performed better with a 25.44% return vs 20.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GSWO is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for SFGV.
SFGV has the higher dividend yield at 2.25%, compared with 1.61% for GSWO.
They also come from different issuers: Sequoia and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for SFGV and 0.25% for GSWO.
SFGV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.21 vs 1.88), 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.
Find the right allocation for SFGV and GSWO
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer