ACWI vs. SGLN.L
ACWI (iShares MSCI ACWI ETF) and SGLN.L (iShares Physical Gold ETC) are both exchange-traded funds - ACWI is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI All Country World Index, while SGLN.L is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ACWI returned 12.43%/yr vs 13.13%/yr for SGLN.L. At a 0.12 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ACWI charges 0.32%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for SGLN.L.
Performance
ACWI vs. SGLN.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
ACWI is traded in USD, while SGLN.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the SGLN.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 9.12% return, which is significantly higher than SGLN.L's 0.50% return. Over the past 10 years, ACWI has underperformed SGLN.L with an annualized return of 12.43%, while SGLN.L has yielded a comparatively higher 13.13% annualized return.
ACWI
- 1D
- -2.98%
- 1M
- -0.64%
- YTD
- 9.12%
- 6M
- 9.60%
- 1Y
- 24.80%
- 3Y*
- 19.97%
- 5Y*
- 10.68%
- 10Y*
- 12.43%
SGLN.L
- 1D
- -3.03%
- 1M
- -7.99%
- YTD
- 0.50%
- 6M
- 2.73%
- 1Y
- 29.88%
- 3Y*
- 30.03%
- 5Y*
- 17.89%
- 10Y*
- 13.13%
ACWI vs. SGLN.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACWI iShares MSCI ACWI ETF | 9.12% | 22.41% | 17.45% | 22.27% | -18.39% | 18.66% | 16.34% | 26.59% | -9.19% | 24.33% |
SGLN.L iShares Physical Gold ETC | 0.50% | 65.25% | 26.06% | 12.89% | -0.12% | -3.71% | 23.60% | 19.23% | -1.55% | 11.36% |
Correlation
The correlation between ACWI and SGLN.L is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.29 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.20 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.14 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 11, 2011 | 0.12 |
The correlation between ACWI and SGLN.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.12 (all time) to 0.29 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. SGLN.L — Risk / Return Rank
ACWI
SGLN.L
ACWI vs. SGLN.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) and iShares Physical Gold ETC (SGLN.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.
| ACWI | SGLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.78 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.08 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.36 | 1.23 | +0.13 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.66 | 1.57 | +1.09 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.88 | 4.20 | +7.68 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ACWI | SGLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.97 | 1.19 | +0.78 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.67 | 0.79 | -0.12 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.73 | 0.70 | +0.03 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.42 | 0.18 | +0.24 |
Drawdowns
ACWI vs. SGLN.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ACWI drawdown since its inception was -56.00%, roughly equal to the maximum SGLN.L drawdown of -56.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACWI and SGLN.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ACWI | SGLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -56.00% | -56.74% | +0.74% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.73% | -18.44% | +8.71% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.55% | -19.67% | +3.12% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -26.42% | -21.27% | -5.15% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -33.53% | -21.27% | -12.26% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.49% | -18.44% | +14.95% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.61% | -33.03% | +24.42% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.17% | 6.93% | -4.76% |
Volatility
ACWI vs. SGLN.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) is 4.59%, while iShares Physical Gold ETC (SGLN.L) has a volatility of 5.73%. This indicates that ACWI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SGLN.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ACWI | SGLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.59% | 5.73% | -1.14% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.76% | 21.25% | -10.49% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.15% | 24.46% | -11.31% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.10% | 22.62% | -6.52% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.13% | 18.77% | -1.64% |
ACWI vs. SGLN.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
ACWI has a 0.32% expense ratio, which is higher than SGLN.L's 0.12% expense ratio.
Dividends
ACWI vs. SGLN.L - Dividend Comparison
ACWI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.42%, while SGLN.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACWI iShares MSCI ACWI ETF | 1.42% | 1.55% | 1.70% | 1.88% | 1.79% | 1.71% | 1.43% | 2.33% | 2.18% | 1.94% | 2.19% | 2.56% |
SGLN.L iShares Physical Gold ETC | 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 SGLN.L have a correlation of 0.29, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, SGLN.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
SGLN.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.32% for ACWI.
ACWI is categorized as Global Equities, while SGLN.L is Gold. ACWI tracks MSCI All Country World Index, while SGLN.L tracks LBMA Gold Price. Their fees differ too: 0.32% for ACWI and 0.12% for SGLN.L.
Find the right allocation for ACWI and SGLN.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