ACWL.L vs. BATG.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ACWL.L (Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF) and BATG.L (L&G Battery Value-Chain UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ACWL.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD, while BATG.L is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the Solactive Battery Value-Chain Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ACWL.L returned 12.39%/yr vs 17.96%/yr for BATG.L. At a 0.27 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ACWL.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for BATG.L.

Performance

ACWL.L vs. BATG.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 L&G Battery Value-Chain UCITS ETF (BATG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACWL.L achieves a 12.44% return, which is significantly lower than BATG.L's 37.63% 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%

BATG.L

• 1D: -1.34%
• 1M: 2.71%
• YTD: 37.63%
• 6M: 44.30%
• 1Y: 135.61%
• 3Y*: 26.06%
• 5Y*: 17.96%
• 10Y*: —

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

ACWL.L vs. BATG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
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%	-2.13%
BATG.L L&G Battery Value-Chain UCITS ETF	37.63%	60.42%	0.47%	2.83%	-3.91%	17.00%	75.38%	12.95%	-17.42%

Correlation

The correlation between ACWL.L and BATG.L is 0.60, 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	0.60
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.45
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 24, 2018	0.27

Over the past year, ACWL.L and BATG.L have become more correlated (0.60) than their long-term average of 0.27, meaning their price movements have been converging.

ACWL.L vs. BATG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ACWL.L	BATG.L
Technology	29.3%	17.6%
Financial Services	16.2%	-
Industrials	10.9%	31.2%
Consumer Cyclical	9.3%	20.1%
Communication Services	9.0%	-
Healthcare	8.1%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	-
Energy	4.2%	-
Basic Materials	3.7%	24.4%
Utilities	2.6%	6.7%
Real Estate	1.8%	-

Return for Risk

ACWL.L vs. BATG.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: 87
ACWL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
ACWL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
ACWL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 90
ACWL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
ACWL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 85

BATG.L

BATG.L Risk / Return Rank: 96
BATG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
BATG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
BATG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 94
BATG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
BATG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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. BATG.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 L&G Battery Value-Chain UCITS ETF (BATG.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.L	BATG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.06	4.86	-1.80
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.15	5.16	-1.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	1.70	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.26	9.91	-5.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.67	34.05	-16.38
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ACWL.L vs. BATG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACWL.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.06, which is lower than the BATG.L Sharpe Ratio of 4.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACWL.L and BATG.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ACWL.L	BATG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.06	4.86	-1.80
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.90	0.80	+1.10
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	2.61	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.36	0.82	+1.54

Drawdowns

ACWL.L vs. BATG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACWL.L drawdown since its inception was -18.15%, smaller than the maximum BATG.L drawdown of -33.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACWL.L and BATG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACWL.L	BATG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.15%	-33.37%	+15.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.06%	-13.61%	+6.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.15%	-33.37%	+15.22%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.15%	-33.37%	+15.22%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-18.15%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.29%	-1.75%	+1.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.44%	-8.99%	+6.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.71%	3.97%	-2.26%

Volatility

ACWL.L vs. BATG.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.L) is 2.64%, while L&G Battery Value-Chain UCITS ETF (BATG.L) has a volatility of 9.84%. This indicates that ACWL.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BATG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ACWL.L	BATG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.64%	9.84%	-7.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.02%	21.92%	-14.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.88%	27.78%	-17.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.54%	22.51%	-5.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.34%	22.84%	+0.50%

ACWL.L vs. BATG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACWL.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than BATG.L's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACWL.L vs. BATG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither ACWL.L nor BATG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ACWL.L and BATG.L in my portfolio?

ACWL.L and BATG.L have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ACWL.L or BATG.L?

On fees, ACWL.L is cheaper at 0.45% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, ACWL.L or BATG.L?

ACWL.L is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for BATG.L.

What is the main difference between ACWL.L and BATG.L?

ACWL.L is categorized as Global Equities, while BATG.L is Alternative Energy Equities. ACWL.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD, while BATG.L tracks Solactive Battery Value-Chain Index. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and Legal & General Investment Management. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for ACWL.L and 0.49% for BATG.L.