PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
ACWI vs. FNGS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

ACWI vs. FNGS

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

ACWI (iShares MSCI ACWI ETF) and FNGS (MicroSectors FANG+ ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - ACWI is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI All Country World Index, while FNGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the NYSE FANG+ Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ACWI returned 10.88%/yr vs 19.76%/yr for FNGS. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ACWI charges 0.32%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for FNGS.

Performance

ACWI vs. FNGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) and MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACWI achieves a 10.59% return, which is significantly higher than FNGS's 6.79% return.

ACWI

1D
0.41%
1M
-0.11%
YTD
10.59%
6M
11.34%
1Y
26.86%
3Y*
19.78%
5Y*
10.88%
10Y*
13.02%

FNGS

1D
-0.94%
1M
-3.68%
YTD
6.79%
6M
4.25%
1Y
19.09%
3Y*
29.80%
5Y*
19.76%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ACWI vs. FNGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF		10.59%22.41%17.45%22.27%-18.39%18.66%16.34%4.25%
FNGS
MicroSectors FANG+ ETN		6.79%18.64%51.99%95.24%-40.32%16.96%101.99%10.10%

Correlation

The correlation between ACWI and FNGS is 0.71, 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

0.71

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

0.74

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

0.78

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 13, 2019

0.76

The correlation between ACWI and FNGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

ACWI vs. FNGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ACWI
FNGS

Technology

32.2%
63.4%

Financial Services

15.6%
10.0%

Industrials

10.2%

-

Consumer Cyclical

8.7%
10.6%

Communication Services

8.2%
26.0%

Healthcare

8.1%

-

Consumer Defensive

4.7%

-

Energy

3.9%

-

Basic Materials

3.6%

-

Utilities

2.7%

-

Real Estate

1.6%

-

Technology

ACWI
32.2%
FNGS
63.4%

Financial Services

ACWI
15.6%
FNGS
10.0%

Industrials

ACWI
10.2%
FNGS

-

Consumer Cyclical

ACWI
8.7%
FNGS
10.6%

Communication Services

ACWI
8.2%
FNGS
26.0%

Healthcare

ACWI
8.1%
FNGS

-

Consumer Defensive

ACWI
4.7%
FNGS

-

Energy

ACWI
3.9%
FNGS

-

Basic Materials

ACWI
3.6%
FNGS

-

Utilities

ACWI
2.7%
FNGS

-

Real Estate

ACWI
1.6%
FNGS

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares MSCI ACWI ETF

MicroSectors FANG+ ETN

Often compared with ACWI:
ACWI vs. VTACWI vs. SPYACWI vs. VWRL.LACWI vs. ACWXACWI vs. ACWI.LACWI vs. VOOACWI vs. VTI
Often compared with FNGS:
FNGS vs. MAGSFNGS vs. SPYFNGS vs. QQQFNGS vs. FNGOFNGS vs. QLDFNGS vs. SMHFNGS vs. MON100.NS

Return for Risk

ACWI vs. FNGS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
ACWI
ACWI Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
ACWI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWI Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWI Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWI Calmar Ratio Rank: 6161
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWI Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
Martin Ratio Rank
FNGS
FNGS Risk / Return Rank: 2323
Overall Rank
FNGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2525
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FNGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 2424
Sortino Ratio Rank
FNGS Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
FNGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
FNGS Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
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.

ACWI vs. FNGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) and MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS). 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.

ACWIFNGSDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.90
0.79

+1.11

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.62
1.19

+1.43

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.15

+0.20

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.62

0.75

+1.88

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.46

2.12

+9.34

ACWI vs. FNGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACWI Sharpe Ratio is 1.90, which is higher than the FNGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACWI and FNGS, 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

ACWI vs. FNGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACWI drawdown since its inception was -56.00%, which is greater than FNGS's maximum drawdown of -48.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACWI and FNGS.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ACWIFNGSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-56.00%

-48.98%

-7.02%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.73%

-22.93%

+13.20%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.55%

-26.77%

+10.22%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.42%

-48.98%

+22.56%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-33.53%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.19%

-9.63%

+7.44%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.60%

-10.85%

+2.25%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.22%

8.05%

-5.83%

Volatility

ACWI vs. FNGS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) is 5.17%, while MicroSectors FANG+ ETN (FNGS) has a volatility of 8.74%. This indicates that ACWI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FNGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ACWIFNGSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.17%

8.74%

-3.57%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.09%

17.19%

-6.10%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.42%

21.65%

-8.23%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.15%

30.10%

-13.95%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.14%

31.17%

-14.03%

ACWI vs. FNGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACWI has a 0.32% expense ratio, which is lower than FNGS's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACWI vs. FNGS - Dividend Comparison

ACWI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.40%, while FNGS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF		1.40%1.55%1.70%1.88%1.79%1.71%1.43%2.33%2.18%1.94%2.19%2.56%
FNGS
MicroSectors FANG+ ETN		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

ACWI and FNGS have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FNGS has higher volatility (8.74%) compared to ACWI (5.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACWI dropped -56.00% vs FNGS's -48.98%.

On 5-year performance, FNGS leads with 19.76% vs 10.88% for ACWI. On fees, ACWI is cheaper at 0.32% per year. On volatility, ACWI has been the lower-risk option at 5.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FNGS has performed better with a 19.76% return vs 10.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ACWI is cheaper with a 0.32% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for FNGS.

ACWI has the higher dividend yield at 1.40%, compared with 0.00% for FNGS.

ACWI is categorized as Global Equities, while FNGS is Large Cap Growth Equities. ACWI tracks MSCI All Country World Index, while FNGS tracks NYSE FANG+ Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BMO. Their fees differ too: 0.32% for ACWI and 0.58% for FNGS.

ACWI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.90 vs 0.79), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ACWI and FNGS

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