GLOW vs MFEM
VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF vs PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF
Quick Verdict
MFEM has a lower expense ratio. MFEM delivered stronger 1-year returns. MFEM offers more diversification with 701 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | GLOW | MFEM | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.72% | 0.49% | |
| AUM | $68M | $156M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.41% | 2.39% | |
| Holdings | 16 | 701 | |
| YTD Return | +14.50% | +21.80% | |
| 1Y Return | +24.54% | +33.81% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +20.43% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +8.97% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 10.7% | 17.7% | |
| Max Drawdown | -15.6% | -45.3% | |
| Fund Family | Victory Capital Management Inc. | PIMCO (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jun 21, 2024 | Aug 31, 2017 |
GLOW vs MFEM Performance
VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF (GLOW) is a ETF from Victory Capital Management Inc. and PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF (MFEM) is a ETF from PIMCO (US). Over the past year GLOW returned +24.54% while MFEM returned +33.81%. Year to date, GLOW is up 14.50% versus a gain of 21.80% for MFEM.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
MFEM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.7% compared with 10.7% for GLOW. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -15.6% for GLOW and -45.3% for MFEM. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.72. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
GLOW charges 0.72% per year while MFEM charges 0.49%. On a $10,000 position that is $72 vs $49 annually, a gap of $23 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, GLOW currently yields 1.41% against 2.39% for MFEM.
Holdings Overlap
GLOW and MFEM share 0 holdings out of 517 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, GLOW or MFEM?
GLOW has an expense ratio of 0.72% while MFEM charges 0.49%. MFEM is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $23 per year of difference.
Which performed better, GLOW or MFEM?
Over the past year GLOW returned +24.54% vs +33.81% for MFEM, so MFEM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), GLOW annualized +19.48% vs +6.84% for MFEM. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, GLOW or MFEM?
MFEM has been the more volatile fund at 17.7% annualized versus 10.7% for GLOW. Worst drawdown: GLOW -15.6% vs MFEM -45.3%.
Should I hold both GLOW and MFEM?
GLOW and MFEM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.72, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between GLOW and MFEM?
GLOW and MFEM share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 517 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, GLOW or MFEM?
GLOW yields 1.41% while MFEM yields 2.39%, so MFEM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.