Screener
GLOF vs KONG
iShares Global Equity Factor ETF vs Formidable Fortress ETF
Key differences
- GLOF costs 0.69% less per year.
- GLOF is significantly larger than KONG — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- GLOF is classified as equity, while KONG is alternative — different risk/return profiles.
- GLOF follows a index tracking strategy; KONG uses option income.
- Over the last 3 years, GLOF has delivered higher annualized returns.
- GLOF has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| GLOF | KONG | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.20% | 0.89% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $196M | $22M |
| Since | 2015 | 2021 |
| Dividend yield | 1.57% | 0.36% |
| Asset class | equity | alternative |
| Region | — | — |
| Strategy | index tracking | option income |
| CAGR 1Y | +30.1% | +6.2% |
| CAGR 3Y | +22.5% | +9.3% |
| CAGR 5Y | +11.7% | N/A |
| Sharpe 3Y | 1.26 | 0.49 |
| Volatility 1Y | 12.58% | 10.91% |
| Max drawdown | -34.12% | -19.98% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to GLOF and KONG
Explore further