SFGV vs. LENS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

SFGV (Sequoia Global Value ETF) and LENS (Sarmaya Thematic ETF) are both Global Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, SFGV returned 25.44% vs 61.82% for LENS. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SFGV charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for LENS.

Performance

SFGV vs. LENS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Sequoia Global Value ETF (SFGV) and Sarmaya Thematic ETF (LENS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SFGV achieves a 11.37% return, which is significantly lower than LENS's 13.33% return.

SFGV

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: 3.27%
• YTD: 11.37%
• 6M: 11.60%
• 1Y: 25.44%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LENS

• 1D: -1.54%
• 1M: -1.68%
• YTD: 13.33%
• 6M: 18.33%
• 1Y: 61.82%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

SFGV vs. LENS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
SFGV Sequoia Global Value ETF	11.37%	15.48%
LENS Sarmaya Thematic ETF	13.33%	56.21%

Correlation

The correlation between SFGV and LENS is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 30, 2025	0.40

Return for Risk

SFGV vs. LENS — Risk / Return Rank

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

SFGV

SFGV Risk / Return Rank: 66
SFGV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
SFGV Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
SFGV Omega Ratio Rank: 66
SFGV Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
SFGV Martin Ratio Rank: 64

LENS

LENS Risk / Return Rank: 67
LENS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
LENS Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
LENS Omega Ratio Rank: 68
LENS Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
LENS Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

SFGV vs. LENS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Sequoia Global Value ETF (SFGV) and Sarmaya Thematic ETF (LENS). 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	LENS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.21	2.34	-0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.17	2.70	+0.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.41	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.06	4.02	-0.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.43	10.02	+1.41
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SFGV vs. LENS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SFGV Sharpe Ratio is 2.21, which is comparable to the LENS Sharpe Ratio of 2.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SFGV and LENS, 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

	SFGV	LENS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.21	2.34	-0.13
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.33	2.09	-0.77

Drawdowns

SFGV vs. LENS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SFGV drawdown since its inception was -14.51%, smaller than the maximum LENS drawdown of -15.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SFGV and LENS.

Drawdown Indicators

	SFGV	LENS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.51%	-15.47%	+0.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.36%	-15.47%	+7.11%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.38%	-13.64%	+13.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.89%	-3.71%	+1.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.23%	6.19%	-3.96%

Volatility

SFGV vs. LENS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Sequoia Global Value ETF (SFGV) is 2.95%, while Sarmaya Thematic ETF (LENS) has a volatility of 6.16%. This indicates that SFGV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LENS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SFGV	LENS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.95%	6.16%	-3.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.62%	22.07%	-13.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.58%	26.54%	-14.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.26%	25.49%	-12.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.26%	25.49%	-12.23%

SFGV vs. LENS - Expense Ratio Comparison

SFGV has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is lower than LENS's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

SFGV vs. LENS - Dividend Comparison

SFGV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.25%, more than LENS's 1.41% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
LENS Sarmaya Thematic ETF	1.41%	1.60%	0.00%
SFGV Sequoia Global Value ETF	2.25%	2.52%	2.23%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SFGV and LENS in my portfolio?

SFGV and LENS have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SFGV or LENS?

LENS has higher volatility (6.16%) compared to SFGV (2.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SFGV dropped -14.51% vs LENS's -15.47%.

Which ETF is better, SFGV or LENS?

On 1-year performance, LENS leads with 61.82% vs 25.44% for SFGV. On fees, SFGV is cheaper at 0.33% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, SFGV or LENS?

Over the 1-year period, LENS has performed better with a 61.82% return vs 25.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SFGV or LENS?

SFGV is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for LENS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SFGV or LENS?

SFGV has the higher dividend yield at 2.25%, compared with 1.41% for LENS.

What is the main difference between SFGV and LENS?

They also come from different issuers: Sequoia and Sarmaya Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for SFGV and 0.79% for LENS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LENS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.34 vs 2.21), 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.