PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ACWI vs. INRG.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ACWI vs. INRG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) and iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACWI achieves a 10.59% return, which is significantly lower than INRG.L's 27.33% return. Over the past 10 years, ACWI has outperformed INRG.L with an annualized return of 13.02%, while INRG.L has yielded a comparatively lower 11.27% annualized return.


ACWI

1D
0.41%
1M
0.38%
YTD
10.59%
6M
11.34%
1Y
25.40%
3Y*
19.78%
5Y*
10.88%
10Y*
13.02%

INRG.L

1D
2.56%
1M
-5.13%
YTD
27.33%
6M
27.07%
1Y
60.05%
3Y*
4.87%
5Y*
-0.49%
10Y*
11.27%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ACWI vs. INRG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
10.59%22.41%17.45%22.27%-18.39%18.66%16.34%26.59%-9.19%24.33%
INRG.L
iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)
27.33%44.28%-25.89%-19.97%-5.86%-24.60%141.91%44.08%-8.92%19.91%

Correlation

The correlation between ACWI and INRG.L is 0.53, 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

0.53

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

0.45

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

0.48

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

0.49

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 28, 2008

0.51

The correlation between ACWI and INRG.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.45 to 0.53 - a consistent structural relationship.

ACWI vs. INRG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ACWI
INRG.L

Technology

29.4%
11.4%

Financial Services

16.1%

-

Industrials

10.9%
26.5%

Consumer Cyclical

9.3%
0.1%

Communication Services

9.0%

-

Healthcare

8.1%

-

Consumer Defensive

5.0%

-

Energy

4.2%
25.8%

Basic Materials

3.7%
1.2%

Utilities

2.6%
33.6%

Real Estate

1.8%

-

Technology

ACWI
29.4%
INRG.L
11.4%

Financial Services

ACWI
16.1%
INRG.L

-

Industrials

ACWI
10.9%
INRG.L
26.5%

Consumer Cyclical

ACWI
9.3%
INRG.L
0.1%

Communication Services

ACWI
9.0%
INRG.L

-

Healthcare

ACWI
8.1%
INRG.L

-

Consumer Defensive

ACWI
5.0%
INRG.L

-

Energy

ACWI
4.2%
INRG.L
25.8%

Basic Materials

ACWI
3.7%
INRG.L
1.2%

Utilities

ACWI
2.6%
INRG.L
33.6%

Real Estate

ACWI
1.8%
INRG.L

-

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

ACWI vs. INRG.L — 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

INRG.L
INRG.L Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
INRG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
INRG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
INRG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7777
Omega Ratio Rank
INRG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
INRG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8080
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. INRG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) and iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.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.


ACWIINRG.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.37

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.38

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.35

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.62

3.84

-1.21

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.46

14.04

-2.57

ACWI vs. INRG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACWI Sharpe Ratio is 1.90, which is comparable to the INRG.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACWI and INRG.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

ACWI vs. INRG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACWI drawdown since its inception was -56.00%, smaller than the maximum INRG.L drawdown of -93.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACWI and INRG.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ACWIINRG.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-56.00%

-93.70%

+37.70%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.73%

-15.58%

+5.85%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.55%

-44.14%

+27.59%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.42%

-57.52%

+31.10%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-33.53%

-67.67%

+34.14%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.19%

-73.61%

+71.42%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.60%

-81.17%

+72.57%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.22%

4.27%

-2.05%

Volatility

ACWI vs. INRG.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) is 5.17%, while iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.L) has a volatility of 10.77%. This indicates that ACWI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than INRG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ACWIINRG.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.17%

10.77%

-5.60%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.09%

20.10%

-9.01%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.42%

26.30%

-12.88%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.15%

26.94%

-10.79%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.14%

26.70%

-9.56%

ACWI vs. INRG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACWI has a 0.32% expense ratio, which is lower than INRG.L's 0.65% expense ratio.


Dividends

ACWI vs. INRG.L - Dividend Comparison

ACWI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.40%, more than INRG.L's 0.89% yield.


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%
INRG.L
iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)
0.89%1.34%1.24%0.80%0.51%0.74%0.48%1.60%2.81%2.83%2.73%2.55%

Frequently Asked Questions


ACWI and INRG.L have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ACWI is cheaper at 0.32% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ACWI is cheaper with a 0.32% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for INRG.L.

ACWI is categorized as Global Equities, while INRG.L is Energy Equities. ACWI tracks MSCI All Country World Index, while INRG.L tracks S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.32% for ACWI and 0.65% for INRG.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ACWI and INRG.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