ACWV vs. GINX

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) and GINX (SGI Enhanced Global Income ETF) are both Global Equities funds. ACWV is passively managed, while GINX is actively managed. Over the past year, ACWV returned 6.12% vs 29.12% for GINX. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ACWV charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.98%/yr for GINX.

Performance

ACWV vs. GINX - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACWV achieves a 3.64% return, which is significantly lower than GINX's 14.33% return.

ACWV

• 1D: 0.82%
• 1M: 0.81%
• 6M: 2.67%
• YTD: 3.64%
• 1Y: 6.12%
• 3Y*: 9.83%
• 5Y*: 5.48%
• 10Y*: 6.99%

GINX

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: 0.58%
• 6M: 10.44%
• YTD: 14.33%
• 1Y: 29.12%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ACWV vs. GINX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	3.64%	11.04%	8.19%
GINX SGI Enhanced Global Income ETF	14.33%	25.06%	5.77%

Correlation

The correlation between ACWV and GINX is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 29, 2024	0.69

The correlation between ACWV and GINX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

ACWV vs. GINX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ACWV	GINX
Technology	25.8%	11.1%
Financial Services	13.2%	31.1%
Healthcare	13.0%	9.5%
Communication Services	11.9%	4.1%
Consumer Defensive	9.8%	8.2%
Industrials	8.1%	9.1%
Utilities	7.3%	5.7%
Consumer Cyclical	5.1%	5.7%
Energy	3.7%	9.6%
Basic Materials	1.5%	4.2%
Real Estate	0.6%	1.6%

Return for Risk

ACWV vs. GINX — Risk / Return Rank

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

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 25
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 24
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 26

GINX

GINX Risk / Return Rank: 86
GINX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
GINX Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
GINX Omega Ratio Rank: 88
GINX Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
GINX Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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. GINX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) and SGI Enhanced Global Income ETF (GINX). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	ACWV	GINX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.77	2.44	-1.67
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.14	3.45	-2.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.43	-0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.97	3.28	-2.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.75	12.50	-9.75

ACWV vs. GINX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACWV Sharpe Ratio is 0.77, which is lower than the GINX Sharpe Ratio of 2.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACWV and GINX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ACWV vs. GINX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACWV drawdown since its inception was -28.82%, which is greater than GINX's maximum drawdown of -12.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACWV and GINX.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACWV	GINX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.82%	-12.53%	-16.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.37%	-8.91%	+2.54%
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	-1.70%	0.00%	-1.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.11%	-1.76%	-1.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.23%	2.34%	-0.11%

Volatility

ACWV vs. GINX - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) has a higher volatility of 3.29% compared to SGI Enhanced Global Income ETF (GINX) at 3.02%. This indicates that ACWV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GINX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ACWV	GINX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.29%	3.02%	+0.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.28%	9.63%	-3.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.05%	12.01%	-3.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.28%	13.75%	-3.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.29%	13.75%	-1.46%

ACWV vs. GINX - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACWV has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than GINX's 0.98% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACWV vs. GINX - Dividend Comparison

ACWV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.94%, less than GINX's 2.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	1.94%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
GINX SGI Enhanced Global Income ETF	2.08%	2.81%	2.97%	0.00%	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 GINX in my portfolio?

ACWV and GINX have a correlation of 0.68, 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 GINX?

ACWV has higher volatility (3.29%) compared to GINX (3.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACWV dropped -28.82% vs GINX's -12.53%.

Which ETF is better, ACWV or GINX?

On 1-year performance, GINX leads with 29.12% vs 6.12% for ACWV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, GINX has been the lower-risk option at 3.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ACWV or GINX?

Over the 1-year period, GINX has performed better with a 29.12% return vs 6.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ACWV or GINX?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.98% for GINX.

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

GINX has the higher dividend yield at 2.08%, compared with 1.94% for ACWV.

What is the main difference between ACWV and GINX?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Summit Global Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for ACWV and 0.98% for GINX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GINX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.44 vs 0.77), 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.