ECML vs ZAP
Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF vs Global X US Electrification ETF
Which is better, ECML or ZAP?
Each has led over a different period.
ZAP has a lower expense ratio. ECML led over 1Y, ZAP over the full window. ECML is less concentrated, with 20.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 44.2%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ECML | ZAP |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.95% | 0.50%Best |
| AUM | $126M | $440M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.17% | 1.74% |
| Holdings | 130 | 94 |
| YTD Return | +18.99%Best | +6.45% |
| 1Y Return | +24.66%Best | +2.72% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +14.57% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.3%Best | 15.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -19.1% | -13.0%Best |
| $10,000 over 1.8 years | $12,658 | $13,487Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 20.7%Best | 44.2% |
| Fund Family | Euclidean Technologies | Global X by mirae Asset |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | May 18, 2023 | Dec 17, 2024 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized).
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.8 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 18, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (1.8 years).
ECML vs ZAP growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 1.8 years both funds cover.
ECML vs ZAP Performance
Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML) is an ETF from Euclidean Technologies and Global X US Electrification ETF (ZAP) is an ETF from Global X by mirae Asset. Over the past year ECML returned +24.66% while ZAP returned +2.72%. Year to date, ECML is up 18.99% versus a gain of 6.45% for ZAP.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ZAP has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.2% compared with 13.3% for ECML. 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 -19.1% for ECML and -13.0% for ZAP. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.22. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ECML charges 0.95% per year while ZAP charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $95 vs $50 annually, a gap of $45 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ECML currently yields 1.17% against 1.74% for ZAP.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 64 holdings in ECML and 45 in ZAP, totalling 100.0% and 100.4% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
0 positions in common, counted across the 64 positions we hold weights for in ECML and 45 in ZAP, against full books of 130 and 94.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 44 positions for ZAP that do not appear in our book for ECML (98.8% of the fund), and 63 for ECML that do not appear in ZAP (98.4%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of ECML and ZAP you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ECML or ZAP?
ECML has an expense ratio of 0.95% while ZAP charges 0.50%. ZAP is the cheaper option, by $45 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ECML or ZAP?
Over the past year ECML returned +24.66% vs +2.72% for ZAP, so ECML leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), ECML annualized +13.99% vs +18.08% for ZAP. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ECML or ZAP?
ZAP has been the more volatile fund at 15.2% annualized versus 13.3% for ECML. Worst drawdown: ECML -19.1% vs ZAP -13.0%.
Should I hold both ECML and ZAP?
ECML and ZAP have a monthly-return correlation of 0.22, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, ECML or ZAP?
ECML yields 1.17% while ZAP yields 1.74%, so ZAP currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ZAP better than ECML?
ZAP has a lower expense ratio. ECML led over 1Y, ZAP over the full window. ECML is less concentrated, with 20.7% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 44.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.