PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ANEW vs. QWLD
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ANEW vs. QWLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares MSCI Transformational Changes ETF (ANEW) and SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ANEW achieves a 1.92% return, which is significantly lower than QWLD's 6.55% return.


ANEW

1D
-0.48%
1M
4.91%
YTD
1.92%
6M
0.88%
1Y
6.05%
3Y*
13.69%
5Y*
3.83%
10Y*

QWLD

1D
-0.56%
1M
2.55%
YTD
6.55%
6M
7.32%
1Y
17.09%
3Y*
16.35%
5Y*
9.96%
10Y*
11.68%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ANEW vs. QWLD - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
ANEW
ProShares MSCI Transformational Changes ETF
1.92%12.01%19.37%22.81%-29.62%6.95%5.77%
QWLD
SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF
6.55%17.93%14.44%19.59%-13.30%21.57%8.83%

Correlation

The correlation between ANEW and QWLD is 0.81, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


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

0.81

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

0.85

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

0.87

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 19, 2020

0.85

The correlation between ANEW and QWLD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

ANEW vs. QWLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ANEW
QWLD

Healthcare

23.3%
12.6%

Technology

22.6%
22.3%

Communication Services

16.0%
9.6%

Basic Materials

11.6%
2.9%

Consumer Cyclical

11.2%
5.0%

Industrials

7.0%
8.6%

Consumer Defensive

4.6%
7.6%

Financial Services

3.6%
13.8%

Real Estate

0.2%
0.8%

Energy

-

4.5%

Utilities

-

3.7%

Healthcare

ANEW
23.3%
QWLD
12.6%

Technology

ANEW
22.6%
QWLD
22.3%

Communication Services

ANEW
16.0%
QWLD
9.6%

Basic Materials

ANEW
11.6%
QWLD
2.9%

Consumer Cyclical

ANEW
11.2%
QWLD
5.0%

Industrials

ANEW
7.0%
QWLD
8.6%

Consumer Defensive

ANEW
4.6%
QWLD
7.6%

Financial Services

ANEW
3.6%
QWLD
13.8%

Real Estate

ANEW
0.2%
QWLD
0.8%

Energy

ANEW

-

QWLD
4.5%

Utilities

ANEW

-

QWLD
3.7%

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

ANEW vs. QWLD — Risk / Return Rank

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

ANEW
ANEW Risk / Return Rank: 1515
Overall Rank
ANEW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1616
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ANEW Sortino Ratio Rank: 1515
Sortino Ratio Rank
ANEW Omega Ratio Rank: 1515
Omega Ratio Rank
ANEW Calmar Ratio Rank: 1414
Calmar Ratio Rank
ANEW Martin Ratio Rank: 1414
Martin Ratio Rank

QWLD
QWLD Risk / Return Rank: 5050
Overall Rank
QWLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5151
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QWLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
QWLD Omega Ratio Rank: 4949
Omega Ratio Rank
QWLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 4545
Calmar Ratio Rank
QWLD Martin Ratio Rank: 5555
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.

ANEW vs. QWLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares MSCI Transformational Changes ETF (ANEW) and SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD). 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.


ANEWQWLDDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

0.46

1.77

-1.31

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

0.73

2.55

-1.82

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.09

1.31

-0.22

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

0.38

2.24

-1.87

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

1.08

9.70

-8.62

ANEW vs. QWLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ANEW Sharpe Ratio is 0.46, which is lower than the QWLD Sharpe Ratio of 1.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ANEW and QWLD, 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


ANEWQWLDDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.46

1.77

-1.31

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.20

0.74

-0.54

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.77

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.28

0.69

-0.42

Drawdowns

ANEW vs. QWLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ANEW drawdown since its inception was -39.87%, which is greater than QWLD's maximum drawdown of -31.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ANEW and QWLD.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ANEWQWLDDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-39.87%

-31.89%

-7.98%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.12%

-7.66%

-8.46%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.26%

-12.40%

-7.86%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-39.87%

-22.84%

-17.03%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-31.89%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.05%

-0.56%

-2.49%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-13.37%

-3.71%

-9.66%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.62%

1.77%

+3.85%

Volatility

ANEW vs. QWLD - Volatility Comparison

ProShares MSCI Transformational Changes ETF (ANEW) has a higher volatility of 3.09% compared to SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF (QWLD) at 2.26%. This indicates that ANEW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QWLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ANEWQWLDDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.09%

2.26%

+0.83%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.83%

7.51%

+2.32%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.19%

9.68%

+3.51%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.81%

13.53%

+5.28%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.80%

15.18%

+3.62%

ANEW vs. QWLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

ANEW has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than QWLD's 0.30% expense ratio.


Dividends

ANEW vs. QWLD - Dividend Comparison

ANEW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.61%, less than QWLD's 1.84% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ANEW
ProShares MSCI Transformational Changes ETF
0.61%0.54%1.08%0.87%1.05%0.24%0.04%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
QWLD
SPDR MSCI World StrategicFactors ETF
1.84%1.85%1.74%1.78%2.02%1.77%1.77%2.13%2.33%2.73%2.22%3.42%

Frequently Asked Questions


ANEW and QWLD have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ANEW has higher volatility (3.09%) compared to QWLD (2.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ANEW dropped -39.87% vs QWLD's -31.89%.

On 5-year performance, QWLD leads with 9.96% vs 3.83% for ANEW. On fees, QWLD is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, QWLD has been the lower-risk option at 2.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, QWLD has performed better with a 9.96% return vs 3.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

QWLD is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for ANEW.

QWLD has the higher dividend yield at 1.84%, compared with 0.61% for ANEW.

ANEW tracks MSCI Global Transformational Changes Index, while QWLD tracks MSCI World Factor Mix A-Series (USD). They also come from different issuers: ProShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for ANEW and 0.30% for QWLD.

QWLD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.77 vs 0.46), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ANEW and QWLD

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