CSIO vs. ACWV
CSIO (Cohen & Steers Infrastructure Opportunities Active ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds. CSIO is actively managed, while ACWV is passively managed. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CSIO charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.
Performance
CSIO vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CSIO achieves a 17.22% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 3.64% return.
CSIO
- 1D
- 0.56%
- 1M
- 0.90%
- 6M
- 15.16%
- YTD
- 17.22%
- 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%
CSIO vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CSIO Cohen & Steers Infrastructure Opportunities Active ETF | 17.22% | 0.82% |
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF | 3.64% | 1.05% |
Correlation
The correlation between CSIO and ACWV is 0.49, 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 Dec 10, 2025 | 0.49 |
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
CSIO vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank
CSIO
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
ACWV
CSIO vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cohen & Steers Infrastructure Opportunities Active ETF (CSIO) 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.
| CSIO | ACWV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.14 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 0.97 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 2.75 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CSIO vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CSIO drawdown since its inception was -5.86%, smaller than the maximum ACWV drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CSIO and ACWV.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CSIO | ACWV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -5.86% | -28.82% | +22.96% |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.03% | -1.70% | +1.67% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.08% | -3.11% | +2.03% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 2.23% | — |
Volatility
CSIO vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CSIO | 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 | 11.22% | 8.05% | +3.17% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 11.22% | 10.28% | +0.94% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 11.22% | 12.29% | -1.07% |
CSIO vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison
CSIO has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.
Dividends
CSIO vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison
CSIO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%, 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% |
CSIO Cohen & Steers Infrastructure Opportunities Active ETF | 1.44% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CSIO and ACWV have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
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.
ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for CSIO.
ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.94%, compared with 1.44% for CSIO.
They also come from different issuers: Cohen & Steers and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for CSIO and 0.20% for ACWV.
Find the right allocation for CSIO and ACWV
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