CSWG.L vs. CMU.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CSWG.L (Amundi MSCI Switzerland UCITS ETF CHF) and CMU.L (Amundi ETF MSCI EMU ESG Leaders Select) are both Europe Equities funds from Amundi - CSWG.L tracks the MSCI Switzerland NR CHF while CMU.L tracks the MSCI EMU NR EUR. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CSWG.L returned 9.94%/yr vs 10.86%/yr for CMU.L. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CSWG.L charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for CMU.L.

Performance

CSWG.L vs. CMU.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Amundi MSCI Switzerland UCITS ETF CHF (CSWG.L) and Amundi ETF MSCI EMU ESG Leaders Select (CMU.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CSWG.L achieves a 2.34% return, which is significantly lower than CMU.L's 15.52% return. Over the past 10 years, CSWG.L has underperformed CMU.L with an annualized return of 9.94%, while CMU.L has yielded a comparatively higher 10.86% annualized return.

CSWG.L

• 1D: -0.90%
• 1M: 0.67%
• YTD: 2.34%
• 6M: 5.27%
• 1Y: 15.19%
• 3Y*: 8.64%
• 5Y*: 7.57%
• 10Y*: 9.94%

CMU.L

• 1D: -0.50%
• 1M: 7.55%
• YTD: 15.52%
• 6M: 17.22%
• 1Y: 29.93%
• 3Y*: 15.83%
• 5Y*: 10.45%
• 10Y*: 10.86%

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

CSWG.L vs. CMU.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CSWG.L Amundi MSCI Switzerland UCITS ETF CHF	2.34%	23.70%	-0.86%	8.57%	-7.50%	19.38%	6.91%	29.09%	-2.83%	15.62%
CMU.L Amundi ETF MSCI EMU ESG Leaders Select	15.52%	25.71%	1.42%	14.39%	-5.30%	13.03%	4.59%	19.05%	-11.56%	17.21%

Correlation

The correlation between CSWG.L and CMU.L is 0.63, 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	0.63
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.55
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.55
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 9, 2016	0.40

Over the past year, CSWG.L and CMU.L have become more correlated (0.63) than their long-term average of 0.40, meaning their price movements have been converging.

CSWG.L vs. CMU.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CSWG.L	CMU.L
Healthcare	38.2%	4.2%
Financial Services	19.7%	21.8%
Consumer Defensive	14.7%	5.2%
Industrials	13.1%	15.7%
Basic Materials	5.8%	2.8%
Consumer Cyclical	5.7%	10.1%
Energy	2.7%	0.0%
Communication Services	1.1%	2.3%
Technology	0.8%	30.8%
Real Estate	0.7%	1.3%
Utilities	0.2%	5.8%

Return for Risk

CSWG.L vs. CMU.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CSWG.L

CSWG.L Risk / Return Rank: 31
CSWG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
CSWG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
CSWG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 34
CSWG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
CSWG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 28

CMU.L

CMU.L Risk / Return Rank: 59
CMU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
CMU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
CMU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 61
CMU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
CMU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

CSWG.L vs. CMU.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi MSCI Switzerland UCITS ETF CHF (CSWG.L) and Amundi ETF MSCI EMU ESG Leaders Select (CMU.L). 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.

	CSWG.L	CMU.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.22	2.01	-0.78
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.75	2.82	-1.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.37	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.24	2.61	-1.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.99	9.79	-5.80
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CSWG.L vs. CMU.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CSWG.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.22, which is lower than the CMU.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CSWG.L and CMU.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CSWG.L	CMU.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.22	2.01	-0.78
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.64	0.65	-0.02
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	1.02	0.65	+0.37
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.03	0.48	+0.55

Drawdowns

CSWG.L vs. CMU.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CSWG.L drawdown since its inception was -18.31%, smaller than the maximum CMU.L drawdown of -32.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CSWG.L and CMU.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CSWG.L	CMU.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.31%	-32.53%	+14.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.52%	-11.43%	-1.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.52%	-11.95%	-0.57%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.26%	-21.11%	+4.85%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-18.31%	-31.41%	+13.10%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.01%	-0.50%	-5.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.18%	-5.80%	+1.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.85%	3.05%	+0.80%

Volatility

CSWG.L vs. CMU.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amundi MSCI Switzerland UCITS ETF CHF (CSWG.L) is 3.86%, while Amundi ETF MSCI EMU ESG Leaders Select (CMU.L) has a volatility of 5.38%. This indicates that CSWG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMU.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CSWG.L	CMU.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.86%	5.38%	-1.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.30%	12.44%	-2.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.69%	14.87%	-2.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.26%	16.00%	-1.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.57%	16.78%	+1.79%

CSWG.L vs. CMU.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CSWG.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than CMU.L's 0.15% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

CSWG.L vs. CMU.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CSWG.L nor CMU.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CSWG.L and CMU.L in my portfolio?

CSWG.L and CMU.L have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CSWG.L or CMU.L?

On fees, CMU.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CSWG.L or CMU.L?

CMU.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for CSWG.L.

What is the main difference between CSWG.L and CMU.L?

CSWG.L tracks MSCI Switzerland NR CHF, while CMU.L tracks MSCI EMU NR EUR. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for CSWG.L and 0.15% for CMU.L.