ACWV vs. BLCR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) and BLCR (Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. ACWV is passively managed, while BLCR is actively managed. Over the past year, ACWV returned 4.79% vs 47.09% for BLCR. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ACWV charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.36%/yr for BLCR.

Performance

ACWV vs. BLCR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) and Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF (BLCR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACWV achieves a 2.36% return, which is significantly lower than BLCR's 19.56% return.

ACWV

• 1D: -0.62%
• 1M: 1.01%
• YTD: 2.36%
• 6M: 2.56%
• 1Y: 4.79%
• 3Y*: 10.06%
• 5Y*: 5.47%
• 10Y*: 7.36%

BLCR

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: 6.16%
• YTD: 19.56%
• 6M: 21.53%
• 1Y: 47.09%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ACWV vs. BLCR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	2.36%	11.04%	11.38%	8.96%
BLCR Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF	19.56%	30.93%	17.07%	14.18%

Correlation

The correlation between ACWV and BLCR is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2023	0.47

ACWV vs. BLCR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ACWV	BLCR
Technology	22.6%	35.7%
Healthcare	13.2%	7.6%
Financial Services	13.1%	12.1%
Communication Services	12.2%	11.0%
Consumer Defensive	10.3%	-
Industrials	7.9%	13.5%
Utilities	7.8%	1.6%
Consumer Cyclical	5.1%	10.9%
Energy	3.4%	2.2%
Basic Materials	1.8%	2.2%
Real Estate	0.8%	-

Return for Risk

ACWV vs. BLCR — Risk / Return Rank

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

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 18
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 17
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 20

BLCR

BLCR Risk / Return Rank: 87
BLCR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
BLCR Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
BLCR Omega Ratio Rank: 85
BLCR Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
BLCR Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

ACWV vs. BLCR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) and Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF (BLCR). 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.

	ACWV	BLCR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.62	3.05	-2.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.92	4.02	-3.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.52	-0.41
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.76	4.61	-3.86
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.37	21.86	-19.50
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ACWV vs. BLCR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACWV Sharpe Ratio is 0.62, which is lower than the BLCR Sharpe Ratio of 3.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACWV and BLCR, 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

	ACWV	BLCR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.62	3.05	-2.42
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.54	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.60	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.71	1.90	-1.19

Drawdowns

ACWV vs. BLCR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACWV drawdown since its inception was -28.82%, which is greater than BLCR's maximum drawdown of -21.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACWV and BLCR.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACWV	BLCR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.82%	-21.29%	-7.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.37%	-10.26%	+3.89%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.56%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.14%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-28.82%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.92%	-0.37%	-2.55%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.11%	-2.19%	-0.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.03%	2.16%	-0.13%

Volatility

ACWV vs. BLCR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) is 1.79%, while Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF (BLCR) has a volatility of 4.45%. This indicates that ACWV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BLCR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ACWV	BLCR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.79%	4.45%	-2.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.54%	12.24%	-6.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.71%	15.54%	-7.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.23%	17.47%	-7.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.30%	17.47%	-5.17%

ACWV vs. BLCR - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACWV has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than BLCR's 0.36% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACWV vs. BLCR - Dividend Comparison

ACWV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.04%, more than BLCR's 0.23% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	2.04%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
BLCR Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF	0.23%	0.33%	0.75%	0.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ACWV and BLCR in my portfolio?

ACWV and BLCR have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ACWV or BLCR?

BLCR has higher volatility (4.45%) compared to ACWV (1.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACWV dropped -28.82% vs BLCR's -21.29%.

Which ETF is better, ACWV or BLCR?

On 1-year performance, BLCR leads with 47.09% vs 4.79% for ACWV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 1.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ACWV or BLCR?

Over the 1-year period, BLCR has performed better with a 47.09% return vs 4.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ACWV or BLCR?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.36% for BLCR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ACWV or BLCR?

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 2.04%, compared with 0.23% for BLCR.

What is the main difference between ACWV and BLCR?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and BlackRock. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for ACWV and 0.36% for BLCR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BLCR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.05 vs 0.62), 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.