Screener
NATO vs LGH
Themes Transatlantic Defense ETF vs HCM Defender 500 Index ETF
Key differences
- NATO costs 0.65% less per year.
- LGH is significantly larger than NATO — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- NATO is classified as equity, while LGH is alternative — different risk/return profiles.
- NATO follows a index tracking strategy; LGH uses tactical allocation.
- LGH has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| NATO | LGH | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.35% | 1.00% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $99M | $555M |
| Since | 2024 | 2019 |
| Dividend yield | 0.45% | 0.39% |
| Asset class | equity | alternative |
| Region | — | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | tactical allocation |
| CAGR 1Y | +23.3% | +30.5% |
| CAGR 3Y | N/A | +21.7% |
| CAGR 5Y | N/A | +12.0% |
| Sharpe 3Y | N/A | 1.04 |
| Volatility 1Y | 20.70% | 15.62% |
| Max drawdown | -15.99% | -29.60% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to NATO and LGH
Explore further