BLES vs. ACWV

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

BLES (Inspire Global Hope ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds - BLES tracks the Inspire Global Hope Large Cap Equal Weight Index while ACWV tracks the MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BLES returned 8.22%/yr vs 5.48%/yr for ACWV. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BLES charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

BLES vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Inspire Global Hope ETF (BLES) 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, BLES achieves a 12.46% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 3.64% return.

BLES

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: 0.33%
• 6M: 7.79%
• YTD: 12.46%
• 1Y: 19.94%
• 3Y*: 13.98%
• 5Y*: 8.22%
• 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)

BLES vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BLES Inspire Global Hope ETF	12.46%	19.25%	5.59%	16.47%	-16.21%	24.36%	12.22%	28.39%	-13.43%	15.23%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	3.64%	11.04%	11.38%	8.23%	-10.36%	13.97%	3.04%	21.04%	-1.42%	12.70%

Correlation

The correlation between BLES and ACWV is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.71
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 28, 2017	0.74

The correlation between BLES and ACWV shifts across timeframes, from 0.66 (1 year) to 0.77 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BLES vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BLES	ACWV
Industrials	20.3%	8.1%
Technology	17.6%	25.8%
Financial Services	13.0%	13.2%
Basic Materials	9.8%	1.5%
Real Estate	7.6%	0.6%
Healthcare	7.0%	13.0%
Utilities	7.0%	7.3%
Consumer Cyclical	6.3%	5.1%
Energy	6.0%	3.7%
Consumer Defensive	4.4%	9.8%
Communication Services	1.0%	11.9%

Return for Risk

BLES vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

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

BLES

BLES Risk / Return Rank: 59
BLES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
BLES Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
BLES Omega Ratio Rank: 56
BLES Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
BLES Martin Ratio Rank: 64

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.

BLES vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Inspire Global Hope ETF (BLES) 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.

	BLES	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.57	0.77	+0.80
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.24	1.14	+1.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.14	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.42	0.97	+1.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.01	2.75	+6.27

BLES vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BLES Sharpe Ratio is 1.57, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BLES and ACWV, 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

BLES vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BLES drawdown since its inception was -40.35%, which is greater than ACWV's maximum drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BLES and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	BLES	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.35%	-28.82%	-11.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.29%	-6.37%	-1.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.46%	-7.56%	-7.90%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.61%	-18.14%	-8.47%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-28.82%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.35%	-1.70%	+1.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.98%	-3.11%	-2.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.22%	2.23%	-0.01%

Volatility

BLES vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Inspire Global Hope ETF (BLES) is 3.10%, while iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) has a volatility of 3.29%. This indicates that BLES experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BLES	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.10%	3.29%	-0.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.21%	6.28%	+3.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.77%	8.05%	+4.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.46%	10.28%	+6.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.88%	12.29%	+6.59%

BLES vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

BLES has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

BLES vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

BLES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.82%, less 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%
BLES Inspire Global Hope ETF	1.82%	1.97%	1.90%	1.80%	1.64%	9.28%	1.61%	2.16%	1.73%	2.01%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BLES and ACWV in my portfolio?

BLES and ACWV have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BLES or ACWV?

ACWV has higher volatility (3.29%) compared to BLES (3.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BLES dropped -40.35% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, BLES or ACWV?

On 5-year performance, BLES leads with 8.22% vs 5.48% for ACWV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, BLES has been the lower-risk option at 3.10%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BLES or ACWV?

Over the 5-year period, BLES has performed better with a 8.22% return vs 5.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BLES or ACWV?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for BLES.

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

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.94%, compared with 1.82% for BLES.

What is the main difference between BLES and ACWV?

BLES tracks Inspire Global Hope Large Cap Equal Weight Index, while ACWV tracks MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. They also come from different issuers: Inspire and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for BLES and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BLES currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.57 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.