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

Performance

500G.L vs. ACWL.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 Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.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 ACWL.L's 12.22% return. Over the past 10 years, 500G.L has outperformed ACWL.L with an annualized return of 16.24%, while ACWL.L has yielded a comparatively lower 13.71% 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%

ACWL.L

1D
-0.20%
1M
5.47%
YTD
12.22%
6M
12.15%
1Y
29.76%
3Y*
17.87%
5Y*
12.34%
10Y*
13.71%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

500G.L vs. ACWL.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%
ACWL.L
Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF
12.22%13.63%21.43%13.09%-8.59%20.41%9.74%18.01%2.02%11.14%

Correlation

The correlation between 500G.L and ACWL.L is 0.77, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


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

0.77

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

0.59

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

0.44

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

0.30

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

0.30

Over the past year, 500G.L and ACWL.L have become more correlated (0.77) than their long-term average of 0.30, meaning their price movements have been converging.

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. ACWL.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

ACWL.L
ACWL.L Risk / Return Rank: 8787
Overall Rank
ACWL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8989
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8989
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9090
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
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. ACWL.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 Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.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.LACWL.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.25

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.48

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.51

1.58

-0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.08

4.20

-0.11

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.27

17.39

-2.12

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

The current 500G.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.76, which is comparable to the ACWL.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of 500G.L and ACWL.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.LACWL.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.76

3.01

-0.25

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.05

1.89

-0.83

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

1.05

2.60

-1.55

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.07

2.35

-1.28

Drawdowns

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

The maximum 500G.L drawdown since its inception was -25.52%, which is greater than ACWL.L's maximum drawdown of -18.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for 500G.L and ACWL.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


500G.LACWL.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-25.52%

-18.15%

-7.37%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.12%

-7.06%

-0.06%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.12%

-18.15%

-2.97%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.12%

-18.15%

-2.97%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-25.52%

-18.15%

-7.37%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.22%

-0.22%

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.29%

-2.43%

-0.86%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.91%

1.71%

+0.20%

Volatility

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

Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc (500G.L) and Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.L) have volatilities of 2.65% and 2.63%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


500G.LACWL.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.65%

2.63%

+0.02%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.13%

6.99%

+0.14%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.55%

9.84%

+0.71%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.31%

16.52%

-2.21%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.54%

23.32%

-7.78%

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

500G.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than ACWL.L's 0.45% expense ratio.


Dividends

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

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


500G.L and ACWL.L have a correlation of 0.77, 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 0.45% for ACWL.L.

500G.L is categorized as S&P 500, while ACWL.L is Global Equities. 500G.L tracks S&P 500, while ACWL.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for 500G.L and 0.45% for ACWL.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

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