PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
ACWV vs. VUSA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

ACWV vs. VUSA.L

Last updated Jun 12, 2026

ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) and VUSA.L (Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ACWV is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index, while VUSA.L is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ACWV returned 7.43%/yr vs 14.93%/yr for VUSA.L. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ACWV charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for VUSA.L.

Performance

ACWV vs. VUSA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) and Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (VUSA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

ACWV is traded in USD, while VUSA.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the VUSA.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACWV achieves a 2.53% return, which is significantly lower than VUSA.L's 6.85% return. Over the past 10 years, ACWV has underperformed VUSA.L with an annualized return of 7.43%, while VUSA.L has yielded a comparatively higher 14.93% annualized return.

ACWV

1D
0.64%
1M
0.95%
YTD
2.53%
6M
2.59%
1Y
5.18%
3Y*
10.02%
5Y*
5.38%
10Y*
7.43%

VUSA.L

1D
0.29%
1M
-0.28%
YTD
6.85%
6M
7.57%
1Y
22.40%
3Y*
20.67%
5Y*
12.90%
10Y*
14.93%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ACWV vs. VUSA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF		2.53%11.04%11.38%8.23%-10.36%13.97%3.04%21.04%-1.42%18.57%
VUSA.L
Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF		6.85%17.64%25.21%26.14%-18.75%29.79%17.13%31.61%-5.76%21.26%

Correlation

The correlation between ACWV and VUSA.L is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.27

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

0.33

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

0.44

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

0.47

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 22, 2012

0.48

Over the past year, the correlation between ACWV and VUSA.L has dropped to 0.27 - well below their long-term average of 0.48, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

ACWV vs. VUSA.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ACWV
VUSA.L

Technology

22.6%
35.7%

Healthcare

13.2%
8.5%

Financial Services

13.1%
11.6%

Communication Services

12.2%
11.3%

Consumer Defensive

10.3%
4.9%

Industrials

7.9%
8.3%

Utilities

7.8%
2.4%

Consumer Cyclical

5.1%
10.2%

Energy

3.4%
3.5%

Basic Materials

1.8%
1.8%

Real Estate

0.8%
1.9%

Technology

ACWV
22.6%
VUSA.L
35.7%

Healthcare

ACWV
13.2%
VUSA.L
8.5%

Financial Services

ACWV
13.1%
VUSA.L
11.6%

Communication Services

ACWV
12.2%
VUSA.L
11.3%

Consumer Defensive

ACWV
10.3%
VUSA.L
4.9%

Industrials

ACWV
7.9%
VUSA.L
8.3%

Utilities

ACWV
7.8%
VUSA.L
2.4%

Consumer Cyclical

ACWV
5.1%
VUSA.L
10.2%

Energy

ACWV
3.4%
VUSA.L
3.5%

Basic Materials

ACWV
1.8%
VUSA.L
1.8%

Real Estate

ACWV
0.8%
VUSA.L
1.9%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF

Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF

Often compared with ACWV:
ACWV vs. USMVACWV vs. VTACWV vs. MVOL.LACWV vs. EFAVACWV vs. SPLVACWV vs. VOOACWV vs. XMW.TO
Often compared with VUSA.L:
VUSA.L vs. CSPX.ASVUSA.L vs. VOOVUSA.L vs. VWRL.LVUSA.L vs. SGLN.LVUSA.L vs. VNRT.LVUSA.L vs. VUSA.DEVUSA.L vs. VUKE.L

Return for Risk

ACWV vs. VUSA.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
ACWV
ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 2222
Overall Rank
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2323
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 2222
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 2121
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 2222
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
Martin Ratio Rank
VUSA.L
VUSA.L Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
VUSA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
VUSA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
VUSA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
VUSA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
VUSA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
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.

ACWV vs. VUSA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) and Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (VUSA.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.

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.

ACWVVUSA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.67
1.96

-1.30

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.98
2.84

-1.86

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.12

1.35

-0.23

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.82

2.57

-1.75

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.48

10.83

-8.35

ACWV vs. VUSA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACWV Sharpe Ratio is 0.67, which is lower than the VUSA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.96. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACWV and VUSA.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...

Drawdowns

ACWV vs. VUSA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACWV drawdown since its inception was -28.82%, smaller than the maximum VUSA.L drawdown of -33.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACWV and VUSA.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ACWVVUSA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.82%

-33.51%

+4.69%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.37%

-8.68%

+2.31%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.56%

-18.46%

+10.90%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.14%

-25.31%

+7.17%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-28.82%

-33.51%

+4.69%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.75%

-3.61%

+0.86%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.11%

-3.69%

+0.58%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.09%

2.06%

+0.03%

Volatility

ACWV vs. VUSA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) is 2.17%, while Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (VUSA.L) has a volatility of 3.09%. This indicates that ACWV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than VUSA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ACWVVUSA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.17%

3.09%

-0.92%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.63%

8.24%

-2.61%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

7.80%

11.39%

-3.59%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

10.23%

15.67%

-5.44%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

12.31%

16.23%

-3.92%

ACWV vs. VUSA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACWV has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than VUSA.L's 0.07% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

ACWV vs. VUSA.L - Dividend Comparison

ACWV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.04%, more than VUSA.L's 0.89% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
VUSA.L
Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF		0.89%0.95%1.00%1.24%1.41%1.04%1.44%1.50%1.72%1.61%1.58%1.74%

Frequently Asked Questions

ACWV and VUSA.L have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, VUSA.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

VUSA.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for ACWV.

ACWV is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while VUSA.L is S&P 500. ACWV tracks MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index, while VUSA.L tracks S&P 500 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for ACWV and 0.07% for VUSA.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ACWV and VUSA.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