TMFG vs. NZAC
TMFG (Motley Fool Global Opportunities ETF) and NZAC (SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF) are both Global Equities funds. TMFG is actively managed, while NZAC is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, TMFG returned 12.52%/yr vs 17.85%/yr for NZAC. Their correlation of 0.85 means they have usually moved in the same direction. TMFG charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for NZAC.
Performance
TMFG vs. NZAC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TMFG achieves a 5.76% return, which is significantly lower than NZAC's 8.44% return.
TMFG
- 1D
- 1.85%
- 1M
- 2.53%
- 6M
- 5.07%
- YTD
- 5.76%
- 1Y
- 8.13%
- 3Y*
- 12.52%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 4.47%
NZAC
- 1D
- 1.08%
- 1M
- 1.18%
- 6M
- 6.93%
- YTD
- 8.44%
- 1Y
- 20.16%
- 3Y*
- 17.85%
- 5Y*
- 9.41%
- 10Y*
- 11.74%
- ALL TIME*
- 10.15%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $189.55K | $148.28K | $202.23K | |
| $305.59K | $359.54K | $429.54K |
TMFG vs. NZAC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TMFG Motley Fool Global Opportunities ETF | 5.76% | 6.75% | 15.45% | 28.36% | -28.17% | 1.91% |
NZAC SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF | 8.44% | 20.55% | 16.67% | 23.22% | -19.77% | 1.12% |
Correlation
The correlation between TMFG and NZAC is 0.78, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.78 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.83 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2021 | 0.85 |
The correlation between TMFG and NZAC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.85 - 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
TMFG vs. NZAC — Risk / Return Rank
TMFG
NZAC
TMFG vs. NZAC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool Global Opportunities ETF (TMFG) and SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC). 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.
| TMFG | NZAC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.84 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.11 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.11 | 1.26 | -0.15 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.69 | 2.01 | -1.31 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.33 | 7.93 | -5.60 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
TMFG vs. NZAC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TMFG drawdown since its inception was -33.66%, roughly equal to the maximum NZAC drawdown of -33.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFG and NZAC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TMFG | NZAC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -33.66% | -33.72% | +0.06% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.81% | -10.10% | -1.71% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.60% | -16.19% | -0.41% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -28.31% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -33.72% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -1.17% | +1.17% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.16% | -5.28% | -4.88% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.50% | 2.55% | +0.95% |
Volatility
TMFG vs. NZAC - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Motley Fool Global Opportunities ETF (TMFG) is 3.92%, while SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF (NZAC) has a volatility of 4.21%. This indicates that TMFG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NZAC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| TMFG | NZAC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.92% | 4.21% | -0.29% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.52% | 11.67% | -1.15% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.59% | 14.03% | -0.44% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.45% | 16.97% | +1.48% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.45% | 17.08% | +1.37% |
TMFG vs. NZAC - Expense Ratio Comparison
TMFG has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than NZAC's 0.12% expense ratio.
Dividends
TMFG vs. NZAC - Dividend Comparison
TMFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.26%, less than NZAC's 2.04% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NZAC SPDR MSCI ACWI Climate Paris Aligned ETF | 2.04% | 1.90% | 1.88% | 1.65% | 1.81% | 1.62% | 1.59% | 2.17% | 2.53% | 2.20% | 2.00% | 2.40% |
TMFG Motley Fool Global Opportunities ETF | 0.26% | 0.27% | 13.94% | 5.42% | 0.70% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
TMFG and NZAC have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
NZAC has higher volatility (4.21%) compared to TMFG (3.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFG dropped -33.66% vs NZAC's -33.72%.
On 3-year performance, NZAC leads with 17.85% vs 12.52% for TMFG. On fees, NZAC is cheaper at 0.12% per year. On volatility, TMFG has been the lower-risk option at 3.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, NZAC has performed better with a 17.85% return vs 12.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
NZAC is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for TMFG.
NZAC has the higher dividend yield at 2.04%, compared with 0.26% for TMFG.
They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for TMFG and 0.12% for NZAC.
NZAC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.45 vs 0.60), 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 TMFG and NZAC
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