PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ACWL.L vs. 500G.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ACWL.L vs. 500G.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.L) and Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc (500G.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACWL.L achieves a 12.44% return, which is significantly higher than 500G.L's 10.61% return. Over the past 10 years, ACWL.L has underperformed 500G.L with an annualized return of 13.73%, while 500G.L has yielded a comparatively higher 16.39% annualized return.


ACWL.L

1D
-0.29%
1M
6.05%
YTD
12.44%
6M
12.71%
1Y
30.24%
3Y*
18.94%
5Y*
12.39%
10Y*
13.73%

500G.L

1D
-0.18%
1M
6.01%
YTD
10.61%
6M
10.63%
1Y
29.26%
3Y*
19.43%
5Y*
15.06%
10Y*
16.39%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ACWL.L vs. 500G.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ACWL.L
Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF
12.44%13.63%21.43%13.09%-8.59%20.41%9.74%18.01%2.02%11.14%
500G.L
Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc
10.61%9.44%27.44%19.89%-8.86%31.35%13.81%27.01%0.05%10.79%

Correlation

The correlation between ACWL.L and 500G.L is 0.77, 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

0.77

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

0.59

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

0.44

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

0.30

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

0.30

Over the past year, ACWL.L and 500G.L have become more correlated (0.77) than their long-term average of 0.30, meaning their price movements have been converging.

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

ACWL.L vs. 500G.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

ACWL.L
ACWL.L Risk / Return Rank: 8787
Overall Rank
ACWL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8989
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8989
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9090
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
Martin Ratio Rank

500G.L
500G.L Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
500G.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
500G.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
500G.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8484
Omega Ratio Rank
500G.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
500G.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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.

ACWL.L vs. 500G.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.L) and Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc (500G.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.


ACWL.L500G.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.29

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.53

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.59

1.52

+0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.26

4.09

+0.17

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

17.67

15.30

+2.37

ACWL.L vs. 500G.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACWL.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.06, which is comparable to the 500G.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACWL.L and 500G.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


ACWL.L500G.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.06

2.76

+0.29

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.90

1.05

+0.84

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

2.61

1.06

+1.55

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

2.36

1.07

+1.29

Drawdowns

ACWL.L vs. 500G.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACWL.L drawdown since its inception was -18.15%, smaller than the maximum 500G.L drawdown of -25.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACWL.L and 500G.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ACWL.L500G.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-18.15%

-25.52%

+7.37%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.06%

-7.12%

+0.06%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.15%

-21.12%

+2.97%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.15%

-21.12%

+2.97%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-18.15%

-25.52%

+7.37%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.29%

-0.18%

-0.11%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.44%

-3.29%

+0.85%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.71%

1.91%

-0.20%

Volatility

ACWL.L vs. 500G.L - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.L) and Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc (500G.L) have volatilities of 2.64% and 2.64%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ACWL.L500G.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.64%

2.64%

0.00%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.02%

7.13%

-0.11%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.88%

10.62%

-0.74%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.54%

14.31%

+2.23%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.34%

15.55%

+7.79%

ACWL.L vs. 500G.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACWL.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than 500G.L's 0.15% expense ratio.


Dividends

ACWL.L vs. 500G.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither ACWL.L nor 500G.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


ACWL.L and 500G.L have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

500G.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for ACWL.L.

ACWL.L is categorized as Global Equities, while 500G.L is S&P 500. ACWL.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD, while 500G.L tracks S&P 500. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for ACWL.L and 0.15% for 500G.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ACWL.L and 500G.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