AMTR vs. ACWL.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AMTR (ETRACS Alerian Midstream Energy Total Return Index ETN) and ACWL.L (Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AMTR is a MLPs fund tracking the Alerian Midstream Energy Index, while ACWL.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD. Both are passively managed. At a 0.05 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AMTR charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for ACWL.L.

Performance

AMTR vs. ACWL.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ETRACS Alerian Midstream Energy Total Return Index ETN (AMTR) and Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

AMTR

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ACWL.L

• 1D: -0.56%
• 1M: 4.94%
• YTD: 12.18%
• 6M: 13.32%
• 1Y: 29.37%
• 3Y*: 21.85%
• 5Y*: 11.18%
• 10Y*: 12.87%

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

AMTR vs. ACWL.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
AMTR ETRACS Alerian Midstream Energy Total Return Index ETN	0.00%	0.00%	44.68%	12.75%	20.41%	36.99%	15.24%
ACWL.L Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF	12.18%	21.83%	19.36%	17.72%	-16.89%	20.41%	9.04%

Correlation

The correlation between AMTR and ACWL.L is 0.05, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.05
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 22, 2020	0.05

AMTR vs. ACWL.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AMTR	ACWL.L
Basic Materials	0.0%	3.7%
Communication Services	0.0%	9.0%
Consumer Cyclical	0.0%	9.3%
Consumer Defensive	0.0%	5.0%
Energy	0.0%	4.2%
Financial Services	0.0%	16.2%
Healthcare	0.0%	8.1%
Industrials	0.0%	10.9%
Real Estate	0.0%	1.8%
Technology	0.0%	29.3%
Utilities	0.0%	2.6%

Return for Risk

AMTR vs. ACWL.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

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.

AMTR vs. ACWL.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS Alerian Midstream Energy Total Return Index ETN (AMTR) and Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AMTR	ACWL.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	2.57	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.28	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	2.00	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	—	1.80	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	AMTR	ACWL.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	—	-25.82%	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-9.55%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-17.33%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.82%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-25.82%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	—	-0.56%	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	—	-2.78%	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	2.10%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	AMTR	ACWL.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	3.45%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	8.77%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	11.41%	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	—	21.92%	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	—	28.23%	—

AMTR vs. ACWL.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

AMTR has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWL.L's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

AMTR vs. ACWL.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

AMTR and ACWL.L have a correlation of 0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

ACWL.L is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for AMTR.

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

AMTR is categorized as MLPs, while ACWL.L is Global Equities. AMTR tracks Alerian Midstream Energy Index, while ACWL.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD. They also come from different issuers: UBS and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for AMTR and 0.45% for ACWL.L.