CGGO vs. ACWV

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

CGGO (Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds. CGGO is actively managed, while ACWV is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CGGO returned 19.21%/yr vs 9.73%/yr for ACWV. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGGO charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

CGGO vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF (CGGO) 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, CGGO achieves a 16.57% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 3.42% return.

CGGO

• 1D: 1.08%
• 1M: -0.44%
• 6M: 11.98%
• YTD: 16.57%
• 1Y: 27.22%
• 3Y*: 19.21%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ACWV

• 1D: -0.39%
• 1M: 0.53%
• 6M: 2.85%
• YTD: 3.42%
• 1Y: 5.53%
• 3Y*: 9.73%
• 5Y*: 5.39%
• 10Y*: 6.98%

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

CGGO vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CGGO Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF	16.57%	21.08%	14.80%	23.43%	-10.40%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	3.42%	11.04%	11.38%	8.23%	-2.80%

Correlation

The correlation between CGGO and ACWV is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2022	0.64

Over the past year, the correlation between CGGO and ACWV has dropped to 0.40 - well below their long-term average of 0.64, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

CGGO vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGGO	ACWV
Technology	40.8%	25.8%
Industrials	14.9%	8.1%
Financial Services	11.0%	13.2%
Healthcare	8.7%	13.0%
Consumer Cyclical	8.2%	5.1%
Communication Services	7.0%	11.9%
Consumer Defensive	3.7%	9.8%
Basic Materials	2.8%	1.5%
Energy	1.4%	3.7%
Utilities	0.9%	7.3%
Real Estate	-	0.6%

Return for Risk

CGGO vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGGO

CGGO Risk / Return Rank: 52
CGGO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
CGGO Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
CGGO Omega Ratio Rank: 51
CGGO Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
CGGO Martin Ratio Rank: 62

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 23
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 21
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 24

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.

CGGO vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF (CGGO) 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.

	CGGO	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.39	0.69	+0.70
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.94	1.03	+0.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.13	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.08	0.87	+1.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.78	2.49	+6.29

CGGO vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGGO Sharpe Ratio is 1.39, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGGO 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

CGGO vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGGO drawdown since its inception was -24.90%, smaller than the maximum ACWV drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGGO and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGGO	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.90%	-28.82%	+3.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.15%	-6.37%	-6.78%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.93%	-7.56%	-10.37%
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	-5.17%	-1.91%	-3.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.43%	-3.11%	-2.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.11%	2.22%	+0.89%

Volatility

CGGO vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF (CGGO) has a higher volatility of 8.45% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 3.15%. This indicates that CGGO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGGO	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.45%	3.15%	+5.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.63%	6.25%	+11.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.64%	8.06%	+11.58%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.09%	10.27%	+8.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.09%	12.29%	+6.80%

CGGO vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGGO has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGGO vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

CGGO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.98%, 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%
CGGO Capital Group Global Growth Equity ETF	0.98%	2.03%	1.10%	0.76%	0.59%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGGO and ACWV in my portfolio?

CGGO and ACWV have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGGO or ACWV?

CGGO has higher volatility (8.45%) compared to ACWV (3.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGGO dropped -24.90% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, CGGO or ACWV?

On 3-year performance, CGGO leads with 19.21% vs 9.73% for ACWV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 3.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGGO or ACWV?

Over the 3-year period, CGGO has performed better with a 19.21% return vs 9.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGGO or ACWV?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for CGGO.

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

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.94%, compared with 0.98% for CGGO.

What is the main difference between CGGO and ACWV?

They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for CGGO and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CGGO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.39 vs 0.69), 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.