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

Performance

500G.L vs. CSWG.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 Switzerland UCITS ETF CHF (CSWG.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 10.15% return, which is significantly higher than CSWG.L's 8.43% return. Over the past 10 years, 500G.L has outperformed CSWG.L with an annualized return of 11.67%, while CSWG.L has yielded a comparatively lower 6.66% annualized return.


500G.L

1D
0.00%
1M
0.14%
6M
8.61%
YTD
10.15%
1Y
20.88%
3Y*
18.73%
5Y*
13.65%
10Y*
11.67%

CSWG.L

1D
0.86%
1M
1.38%
6M
7.15%
YTD
8.43%
1Y
20.45%
3Y*
11.43%
5Y*
7.91%
10Y*
6.66%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
500G.L
Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc
10.15%9.44%27.44%19.89%-8.86%31.35%13.81%27.01%-25.34%21.51%
CSWG.L
Amundi MSCI Switzerland UCITS ETF CHF
8.43%23.37%-0.59%8.57%-7.50%19.77%7.79%26.88%-26.62%17.10%

Correlation

The correlation between 500G.L and CSWG.L is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.28

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

0.33

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

0.44

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

0.52

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2010

0.52

Over the past year, the correlation between 500G.L and CSWG.L has dropped to 0.28 - well below their long-term average of 0.52, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

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. CSWG.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: 3131
Overall Rank
500G.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1919
Sharpe Ratio Rank
500G.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2424
Sortino Ratio Rank
500G.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
500G.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2121
Calmar Ratio Rank
500G.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1616
Martin Ratio Rank

CSWG.L
CSWG.L Risk / Return Rank: 5252
Overall Rank
CSWG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CSWG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
CSWG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6262
Omega Ratio Rank
CSWG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4040
Calmar Ratio Rank
CSWG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4141
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. CSWG.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 Switzerland UCITS ETF CHF (CSWG.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.


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

-1.07

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.08

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.29

+0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.73

1.63

-0.90

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.08

5.16

-4.09

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

The current 500G.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.48, which is lower than the CSWG.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of 500G.L and CSWG.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...

Drawdowns

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

The maximum 500G.L drawdown since its inception was -35.39%, which is greater than CSWG.L's maximum drawdown of -33.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for 500G.L and CSWG.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


500G.LCSWG.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.39%

-33.48%

-1.91%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-28.61%

-12.52%

-16.09%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-28.61%

-12.52%

-16.09%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.61%

-16.26%

-12.35%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.39%

-33.48%

-1.91%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-16.77%

-1.93%

-14.84%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.21%

-6.68%

+0.47%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

19.39%

3.95%

+15.44%

Volatility

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

The current volatility for Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc (500G.L) is 3.01%, while Amundi MSCI Switzerland UCITS ETF CHF (CSWG.L) has a volatility of 3.64%. This indicates that 500G.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CSWG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


500G.LCSWG.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.01%

3.64%

-0.63%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.93%

10.83%

-2.90%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

43.62%

13.12%

+30.50%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

23.74%

13.07%

+10.67%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.07%

15.81%

+6.26%

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

500G.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than CSWG.L's 0.25% 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. CSWG.L - Dividend Comparison

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


500G.L and CSWG.L have a correlation of 0.28, 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 0.25% for CSWG.L.

500G.L is categorized as S&P 500, while CSWG.L is Europe Equities. 500G.L tracks S&P 500, while CSWG.L tracks MSCI Switzerland NR CHF. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for 500G.L and 0.25% for CSWG.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

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