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

Performance

ACWL.L vs. WMVG.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 iShares Edge MSCI World Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Acc) (WMVG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

ACWL.L is traded in GBp, while WMVG.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the WMVG.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACWL.L achieves a 12.44% return, which is significantly higher than WMVG.L's 1.22% 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%

WMVG.L

1D
0.06%
1M
0.30%
YTD
1.22%
6M
1.94%
1Y
2.85%
3Y*
9.88%
5Y*
6.15%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
ACWL.L
Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF
12.44%13.63%21.43%13.09%-8.59%20.41%9.74%15.68%
WMVG.L
iShares Edge MSCI World Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Acc)
1.22%9.08%14.49%7.33%-8.31%16.96%-1.30%11.65%

Correlation

The correlation between ACWL.L and WMVG.L is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.15

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

0.23

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

0.20

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 1, 2019

0.15

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


Sectors
ACWL.L
WMVG.L

Technology

29.3%
20.1%

Financial Services

16.2%
14.0%

Industrials

10.9%
9.2%

Consumer Cyclical

9.3%
5.6%

Communication Services

9.0%
12.1%

Healthcare

8.1%
13.8%

Consumer Defensive

5.0%
10.9%

Energy

4.2%
4.5%

Basic Materials

3.7%
1.1%

Utilities

2.6%
8.0%

Real Estate

1.8%
0.7%

Technology

ACWL.L
29.3%
WMVG.L
20.1%

Financial Services

ACWL.L
16.2%
WMVG.L
14.0%

Industrials

ACWL.L
10.9%
WMVG.L
9.2%

Consumer Cyclical

ACWL.L
9.3%
WMVG.L
5.6%

Communication Services

ACWL.L
9.0%
WMVG.L
12.1%

Healthcare

ACWL.L
8.1%
WMVG.L
13.8%

Consumer Defensive

ACWL.L
5.0%
WMVG.L
10.9%

Energy

ACWL.L
4.2%
WMVG.L
4.5%

Basic Materials

ACWL.L
3.7%
WMVG.L
1.1%

Utilities

ACWL.L
2.6%
WMVG.L
8.0%

Real Estate

ACWL.L
1.8%
WMVG.L
0.7%

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. WMVG.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

WMVG.L
WMVG.L Risk / Return Rank: 1515
Overall Rank
WMVG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1515
Sharpe Ratio Rank
WMVG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1414
Sortino Ratio Rank
WMVG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1313
Omega Ratio Rank
WMVG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1616
Calmar Ratio Rank
WMVG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1616
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. WMVG.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 iShares Edge MSCI World Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Acc) (WMVG.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.LWMVG.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+2.66

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+3.55

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.59

1.07

+0.51

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.26

0.57

+3.69

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

17.67

1.42

+16.25

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

The current ACWL.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.06, which is higher than the WMVG.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACWL.L and WMVG.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.LWMVG.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.06

0.39

+2.66

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.90

0.62

+1.28

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

0.55

+1.81

Drawdowns

ACWL.L vs. WMVG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACWL.L drawdown since its inception was -18.15%, smaller than the maximum WMVG.L drawdown of -28.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACWL.L and WMVG.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ACWL.LWMVG.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-18.15%

-28.25%

+10.10%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.06%

-4.99%

-2.07%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.15%

-9.09%

-9.06%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.15%

-15.18%

-2.97%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-18.15%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.29%

-3.30%

+3.01%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.44%

-4.12%

+1.68%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.71%

2.00%

-0.29%

Volatility

ACWL.L vs. WMVG.L - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.L) has a higher volatility of 2.64% compared to iShares Edge MSCI World Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF GBP Hedged (Acc) (WMVG.L) at 2.29%. This indicates that ACWL.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than WMVG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ACWL.LWMVG.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.64%

2.29%

+0.35%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.02%

5.05%

+1.97%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.88%

7.21%

+2.67%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.54%

9.95%

+6.59%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.34%

12.14%

+11.20%

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

ACWL.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than WMVG.L's 0.35% expense ratio.


Dividends

ACWL.L vs. WMVG.L - Dividend Comparison

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


ACWL.L and WMVG.L have a correlation of 0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, WMVG.L is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

WMVG.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for ACWL.L.

ACWL.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD, while WMVG.L tracks MSCI World Minimum Volatility. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for ACWL.L and 0.35% for WMVG.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ACWL.L and WMVG.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