PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
500G.L vs. AASG.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

500G.L vs. AASG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc (500G.L) and Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Asia UCITS ETF USD (AASG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, 500G.L achieves a 10.57% return, which is significantly lower than AASG.L's 30.49% return. Over the past 10 years, 500G.L has outperformed AASG.L with an annualized return of 16.24%, while AASG.L has yielded a comparatively lower 12.11% annualized return.


500G.L

1D
-0.04%
1M
5.53%
YTD
10.57%
6M
10.49%
1Y
29.21%
3Y*
19.12%
5Y*
15.05%
10Y*
16.24%

AASG.L

1D
-1.81%
1M
8.00%
YTD
30.49%
6M
33.01%
1Y
59.28%
3Y*
22.95%
5Y*
8.98%
10Y*
12.11%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

500G.L vs. AASG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
500G.L
Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc
10.57%9.44%27.44%19.89%-8.86%31.35%13.81%27.01%0.05%10.79%
AASG.L
Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Asia UCITS ETF USD
30.49%23.83%14.04%0.69%-11.51%-4.50%24.04%14.10%-10.84%30.20%

Correlation

The correlation between 500G.L and AASG.L is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.43

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.46

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.48

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.59

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2016

0.59

The correlation between 500G.L and AASG.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.43 (1 year) to 0.59 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

500G.L vs. AASG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

500G.L
500G.L Risk / Return Rank: 8282
Overall Rank
500G.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
500G.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8282
Sortino Ratio Rank
500G.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8585
Omega Ratio Rank
500G.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
500G.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank

AASG.L
AASG.L Risk / Return Rank: 8989
Overall Rank
AASG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AASG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9090
Sortino Ratio Rank
AASG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9090
Omega Ratio Rank
AASG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
AASG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8686
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

500G.L vs. AASG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc (500G.L) and Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Asia UCITS ETF USD (AASG.L). 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.


500G.LAASG.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.47

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.50

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.51

1.57

-0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.08

5.15

-1.06

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.27

17.77

-2.50

500G.L vs. AASG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current 500G.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.76, which is comparable to the AASG.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of 500G.L and AASG.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


500G.LAASG.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.76

3.22

-0.47

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.05

0.51

+0.55

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

1.05

0.66

+0.39

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.07

0.68

+0.39

Drawdowns

500G.L vs. AASG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum 500G.L drawdown since its inception was -25.52%, smaller than the maximum AASG.L drawdown of -34.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for 500G.L and AASG.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


500G.LAASG.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-25.52%

-34.12%

+8.60%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.12%

-11.46%

+4.34%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.12%

-17.56%

-3.56%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.12%

-28.57%

+7.45%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-25.52%

-34.12%

+8.60%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.22%

-2.74%

+2.52%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.29%

-11.02%

+7.73%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.91%

3.33%

-1.42%

Volatility

500G.L vs. AASG.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc (500G.L) is 2.65%, while Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Asia UCITS ETF USD (AASG.L) has a volatility of 8.29%. This indicates that 500G.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AASG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


500G.LAASG.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.65%

8.29%

-5.64%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.13%

15.55%

-8.42%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.55%

18.34%

-7.79%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.31%

17.70%

-3.39%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.54%

18.56%

-3.02%

500G.L vs. AASG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

500G.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than AASG.L's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

500G.L vs. AASG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither 500G.L nor AASG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


500G.L and AASG.L have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, 500G.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

500G.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for AASG.L.

500G.L is categorized as S&P 500, while AASG.L is Asia Pacific Equities. 500G.L tracks S&P 500, while AASG.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for 500G.L and 0.20% for AASG.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for 500G.L and AASG.L

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer