ACWI vs. RBIL

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

ACWI (iShares MSCI ACWI ETF) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ACWI is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI All Country World Index, while RBIL is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, ACWI returned 23.79% vs 4.11% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.20, they often move in opposite directions. ACWI charges 0.32%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.

Performance

ACWI vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACWI achieves a 9.71% return, which is significantly higher than RBIL's 2.26% return.

ACWI

• 1D: -0.14%
• 1M: -0.49%
• YTD: 9.71%
• 6M: 8.77%
• 1Y: 23.79%
• 3Y*: 19.95%
• 5Y*: 10.62%
• 10Y*: 13.07%

RBIL

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: -0.25%
• YTD: 2.26%
• 6M: 2.29%
• 1Y: 4.11%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ACWI vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ACWI iShares MSCI ACWI ETF	9.71%	18.40%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	2.26%	2.85%

Correlation

The correlation between ACWI and RBIL is -0.20, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2025	-0.20

Return for Risk

ACWI vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

ACWI

ACWI Risk / Return Rank: 59
ACWI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
ACWI Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
ACWI Omega Ratio Rank: 58
ACWI Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
ACWI Martin Ratio Rank: 65

RBIL

RBIL Risk / Return Rank: 97
RBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
RBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). 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.

	ACWI	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.76	4.40	-2.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.44	6.79	-4.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	2.15	-0.82
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.46	7.33	-4.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.66	40.56	-29.90

ACWI vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACWI Sharpe Ratio is 1.76, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 4.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACWI and RBIL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ACWI vs. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACWI drawdown since its inception was -56.00%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACWI and RBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACWI	RBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.00%	-0.56%	-55.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.73%	-0.56%	-9.17%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.55%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.42%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.53%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.96%	-0.56%	-2.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.59%	-0.07%	-8.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.24%	0.10%	+2.14%

Volatility

ACWI vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) has a higher volatility of 5.57% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.36%. This indicates that ACWI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ACWI	RBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.57%	0.36%	+5.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.35%	0.85%	+10.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.62%	0.94%	+12.68%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.19%	1.07%	+15.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.07%	1.07%	+16.00%

ACWI vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACWI has a 0.32% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACWI vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

ACWI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.46%, less than RBIL's 4.39% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWI iShares MSCI ACWI ETF	1.46%	1.55%	1.70%	1.88%	1.79%	1.71%	1.43%	2.33%	2.18%	1.94%	2.19%	2.56%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	4.39%	3.65%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ACWI and RBIL in my portfolio?

ACWI and RBIL have a correlation of -0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ACWI or RBIL?

ACWI has higher volatility (5.57%) compared to RBIL (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACWI dropped -56.00% vs RBIL's -0.56%.

Which ETF is better, ACWI or RBIL?

On 1-year performance, ACWI leads with 23.79% vs 4.11% for RBIL. On fees, RBIL is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ACWI or RBIL?

Over the 1-year period, ACWI has performed better with a 23.79% return vs 4.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ACWI or RBIL?

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.32% for ACWI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ACWI or RBIL?

RBIL has the higher dividend yield at 4.39%, compared with 1.46% for ACWI.

What is the main difference between ACWI and RBIL?

ACWI is categorized as Global Equities, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. ACWI tracks MSCI All Country World Index, while RBIL tracks Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.32% for ACWI and 0.17% for RBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.40 vs 1.76), 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.