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

Performance

500U.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 (500U.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...

Different Trading Currencies

500U.L is traded in USD, while AASG.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the AASG.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, 500U.L achieves a 10.41% return, which is significantly lower than AASG.L's 30.17% return. Over the past 10 years, 500U.L has outperformed AASG.L with an annualized return of 15.69%, while AASG.L has yielded a comparatively lower 11.30% annualized return.


500U.L

1D
-0.02%
1M
3.27%
YTD
10.41%
6M
10.80%
1Y
27.61%
3Y*
22.30%
5Y*
13.83%
10Y*
15.69%

AASG.L

1D
-1.76%
1M
7.08%
YTD
30.17%
6M
33.99%
1Y
57.77%
3Y*
26.12%
5Y*
7.84%
10Y*
11.30%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
500U.L
Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc
10.41%17.98%24.83%26.85%-19.06%30.19%18.05%32.02%-5.58%21.10%
AASG.L
Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Asia UCITS ETF USD
30.18%33.18%12.14%6.00%-20.97%-5.37%27.84%19.11%-16.20%42.60%

Correlation

The correlation between 500U.L and AASG.L is 0.60, 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

0.60

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

0.56

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

0.56

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

0.50

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

0.49

The correlation between 500U.L and AASG.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.49 (all time) to 0.60 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

500U.L vs. AASG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
500U.L
AASG.L

Technology

35.6%
44.9%

Financial Services

11.8%
14.8%

Communication Services

11.2%
7.1%

Consumer Cyclical

10.1%
10.6%

Healthcare

8.5%
3.2%

Industrials

8.3%
7.8%

Consumer Defensive

4.9%
2.5%

Energy

3.5%
2.9%

Utilities

2.4%
1.5%

Real Estate

1.9%
0.7%

Basic Materials

1.8%
3.9%

Technology

500U.L
35.6%
AASG.L
44.9%

Financial Services

500U.L
11.8%
AASG.L
14.8%

Communication Services

500U.L
11.2%
AASG.L
7.1%

Consumer Cyclical

500U.L
10.1%
AASG.L
10.6%

Healthcare

500U.L
8.5%
AASG.L
3.2%

Industrials

500U.L
8.3%
AASG.L
7.8%

Consumer Defensive

500U.L
4.9%
AASG.L
2.5%

Energy

500U.L
3.5%
AASG.L
2.9%

Utilities

500U.L
2.4%
AASG.L
1.5%

Real Estate

500U.L
1.9%
AASG.L
0.7%

Basic Materials

500U.L
1.8%
AASG.L
3.9%

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

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

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

500U.L
500U.L Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
500U.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
500U.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
500U.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
500U.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
500U.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
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.

500U.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 (500U.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.


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

-0.46

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.24

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.44

1.51

-0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.34

4.16

-0.82

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.61

15.79

-1.18

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

The current 500U.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.41, which is comparable to the AASG.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of 500U.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


500U.LAASG.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.41

2.87

-0.46

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.88

0.39

+0.49

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

1.12

0.57

+0.55

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.23

0.61

+0.62

Drawdowns

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

The maximum 500U.L drawdown since its inception was -34.04%, smaller than the maximum AASG.L drawdown of -45.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for 500U.L and AASG.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


500U.LAASG.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.04%

-45.72%

+11.68%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.34%

-13.82%

+5.48%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.29%

-19.25%

+0.96%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.22%

-41.04%

+16.82%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.04%

-45.72%

+11.68%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.51%

-3.05%

+2.54%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.73%

-15.35%

+10.62%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.91%

3.65%

-1.74%

Volatility

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

The current volatility for Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc (500U.L) is 3.21%, while Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Asia UCITS ETF USD (AASG.L) has a volatility of 8.99%. This indicates that 500U.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


500U.LAASG.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.21%

8.99%

-5.78%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.54%

17.15%

-8.61%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.57%

20.08%

-8.51%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.79%

20.02%

-4.23%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.26%

19.93%

-1.67%

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

500U.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

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

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


500U.L and AASG.L have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

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

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

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for 500U.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