WRND vs. KLMT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

WRND (IQ Global Equity R&D Leaders ETF) and KLMT (Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF) are both Global Equities funds - WRND tracks the IQ Global Equity R&D Leaders Index - Benchmark TR Net while KLMT tracks the MSCI ACWI Select Climate 500 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, WRND returned 39.52% vs 27.86% for KLMT. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. WRND charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for KLMT.

Performance

WRND vs. KLMT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in IQ Global Equity R&D Leaders ETF (WRND) and Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, WRND achieves a 16.08% return, which is significantly higher than KLMT's 12.04% return.

WRND

• 1D: -0.80%
• 1M: 5.16%
• YTD: 16.08%
• 6M: 16.09%
• 1Y: 39.52%
• 3Y*: 22.64%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

KLMT

• 1D: -0.78%
• 1M: 5.23%
• YTD: 12.04%
• 6M: 12.88%
• 1Y: 27.86%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

WRND vs. KLMT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
WRND IQ Global Equity R&D Leaders ETF	16.08%	27.72%	0.60%
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	12.04%	21.31%	4.94%

Correlation

The correlation between WRND and KLMT is 0.92, 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	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2024	0.92

The correlation between WRND and KLMT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

WRND vs. KLMT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	WRND	KLMT
Technology	49.9%	30.0%
Industrials	14.0%	10.2%
Communication Services	13.2%	9.6%
Healthcare	11.7%	8.0%
Consumer Cyclical	8.7%	9.2%
Consumer Defensive	1.6%	4.6%
Basic Materials	1.0%	2.8%
Energy	-	4.1%
Financial Services	-	16.9%
Real Estate	-	2.7%
Utilities	-	2.0%

Return for Risk

WRND vs. KLMT — Risk / Return Rank

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

WRND

WRND Risk / Return Rank: 69
WRND Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
WRND Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
WRND Omega Ratio Rank: 67
WRND Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
WRND Martin Ratio Rank: 72

KLMT

KLMT Risk / Return Rank: 67
KLMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
KLMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
KLMT Omega Ratio Rank: 67
KLMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
KLMT Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

WRND vs. KLMT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for IQ Global Equity R&D Leaders ETF (WRND) and Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT). 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.

	WRND	KLMT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.36	2.22	+0.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.19	3.10	+0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.40	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.19	2.93	+0.26
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.52	12.75	+0.77
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

WRND vs. KLMT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current WRND Sharpe Ratio is 2.36, which is comparable to the KLMT Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of WRND and KLMT, 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

	WRND	KLMT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.36	2.22	+0.14
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.81	1.28	-0.47

Drawdowns

WRND vs. KLMT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum WRND drawdown since its inception was -27.16%, which is greater than KLMT's maximum drawdown of -16.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for WRND and KLMT.

Drawdown Indicators

	WRND	KLMT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.16%	-16.87%	-10.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.43%	-9.54%	-2.89%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.41%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.80%	-0.78%	-0.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.97%	-1.91%	-4.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.93%	2.19%	+0.74%

Volatility

WRND vs. KLMT - Volatility Comparison

IQ Global Equity R&D Leaders ETF (WRND) has a higher volatility of 4.77% compared to Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF (KLMT) at 3.76%. This indicates that WRND's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than KLMT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	WRND	KLMT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.77%	3.76%	+1.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.45%	10.07%	+3.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.81%	12.61%	+4.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.79%	15.85%	+2.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.79%	15.85%	+2.94%

WRND vs. KLMT - Expense Ratio Comparison

WRND has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than KLMT's 0.10% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

WRND vs. KLMT - Dividend Comparison

WRND's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.99%, less than KLMT's 1.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
KLMT Invesco MSCI Global Climate 500 ETF	1.75%	1.95%	0.85%	0.00%	0.00%
WRND IQ Global Equity R&D Leaders ETF	0.99%	1.29%	1.15%	2.06%	2.06%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both WRND and KLMT in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, WRND and KLMT 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, WRND or KLMT?

WRND has higher volatility (4.77%) compared to KLMT (3.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, WRND dropped -27.16% vs KLMT's -16.87%.

Which ETF is better, WRND or KLMT?

On 1-year performance, WRND leads with 39.52% vs 27.86% for KLMT. On fees, KLMT is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, KLMT has been the lower-risk option at 3.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, WRND or KLMT?

Over the 1-year period, WRND has performed better with a 39.52% return vs 27.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, WRND or KLMT?

KLMT is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for WRND.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, WRND or KLMT?

KLMT has the higher dividend yield at 1.75%, compared with 0.99% for WRND.

What is the main difference between WRND and KLMT?

WRND tracks IQ Global Equity R&D Leaders Index - Benchmark TR Net, while KLMT tracks MSCI ACWI Select Climate 500 Index. They also come from different issuers: IndexIQ and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for WRND and 0.10% for KLMT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

WRND currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 2.22), 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.