BDYN vs. ACWV

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

BDYN (iShares Dynamic Equity Active ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds from iShares. BDYN is actively managed, while ACWV is passively managed. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BDYN charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

BDYN vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BDYN achieves a 7.89% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 3.64% return.

BDYN

• 1D: -0.93%
• 1M: -0.14%
• 6M: 6.27%
• YTD: 7.89%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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%

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

BDYN vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BDYN iShares Dynamic Equity Active ETF	7.89%	3.61%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	3.64%	-0.05%

Correlation

The correlation between BDYN and ACWV is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2025	0.47

BDYN vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BDYN	ACWV
Technology	33.2%	25.8%
Industrials	12.1%	8.1%
Financial Services	11.5%	13.2%
Communication Services	10.7%	11.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	5.1%
Healthcare	9.6%	13.0%
Energy	5.8%	3.7%
Consumer Defensive	3.6%	9.8%
Utilities	1.9%	7.3%
Basic Materials	1.4%	1.5%
Real Estate	0.2%	0.6%

Return for Risk

BDYN vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

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

BDYN

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

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

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.

BDYN vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Dynamic Equity Active ETF (BDYN) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.

	BDYN	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	0.77	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.14	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.14	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	0.97	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	2.75	—

Drawdowns

BDYN vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BDYN drawdown since its inception was -10.85%, smaller than the maximum ACWV drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BDYN and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	BDYN	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.85%	-28.82%	+17.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-6.37%	—
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	-1.07%	-1.70%	+0.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.75%	-3.11%	+1.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	2.23%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BDYN	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	3.29%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	6.28%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.63%	8.05%	+6.58%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.63%	10.28%	+4.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.63%	12.29%	+2.34%

BDYN vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

BDYN has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

BDYN vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

BDYN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.02%, more than ACWV's 1.94% 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%
BDYN iShares Dynamic Equity Active ETF	2.02%	2.18%	0.00%	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 BDYN and ACWV in my portfolio?

BDYN and ACWV have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, BDYN or ACWV?

On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BDYN or ACWV?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for BDYN.

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

BDYN has the higher dividend yield at 2.02%, compared with 1.94% for ACWV.

What is the main difference between BDYN and ACWV?

Their fees differ too: 0.40% for BDYN and 0.20% for ACWV.