PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CSWG.L vs. EUMV.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CSWG.L vs. EUMV.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 Ossiam Europe ESG Machine Learning ETF UCITS (EUR) (EUMV.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CSWG.L is traded in GBp, while EUMV.L is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the EUMV.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CSWG.L achieves a 2.34% return, which is significantly lower than EUMV.L's 4.01% return. Over the past 10 years, CSWG.L has outperformed EUMV.L with an annualized return of 9.94%, while EUMV.L has yielded a comparatively lower 7.80% 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%

EUMV.L

1D
-0.21%
1M
-1.54%
YTD
4.01%
6M
5.59%
1Y
6.74%
3Y*
11.13%
5Y*
6.88%
10Y*
7.80%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
EUMV.L
Ossiam Europe ESG Machine Learning ETF UCITS (EUR)
4.01%18.06%9.37%4.56%-9.49%15.84%6.52%11.60%-4.02%17.01%

Correlation

The correlation between CSWG.L and EUMV.L is 0.59, 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

0.59

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.54

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.60

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.46

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 9, 2016

0.45

The correlation between CSWG.L and EUMV.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.45 (all time) to 0.60 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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


Sectors
CSWG.L
EUMV.L

Healthcare

38.2%
1.3%

Financial Services

19.7%
17.1%

Consumer Defensive

14.7%
1.1%

Industrials

13.1%
18.7%

Basic Materials

5.8%
0.4%

Consumer Cyclical

5.7%
2.1%

Energy

2.7%
2.2%

Communication Services

1.1%
16.5%

Technology

0.8%
9.8%

Real Estate

0.7%
11.6%

Utilities

0.2%
20.2%

Healthcare

CSWG.L
38.2%
EUMV.L
1.3%

Financial Services

CSWG.L
19.7%
EUMV.L
17.1%

Consumer Defensive

CSWG.L
14.7%
EUMV.L
1.1%

Industrials

CSWG.L
13.1%
EUMV.L
18.7%

Basic Materials

CSWG.L
5.8%
EUMV.L
0.4%

Consumer Cyclical

CSWG.L
5.7%
EUMV.L
2.1%

Energy

CSWG.L
2.7%
EUMV.L
2.2%

Communication Services

CSWG.L
1.1%
EUMV.L
16.5%

Technology

CSWG.L
0.8%
EUMV.L
9.8%

Real Estate

CSWG.L
0.7%
EUMV.L
11.6%

Utilities

CSWG.L
0.2%
EUMV.L
20.2%

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

CSWG.L vs. EUMV.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: 3131
Overall Rank
CSWG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3434
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CSWG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3232
Sortino Ratio Rank
CSWG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3434
Omega Ratio Rank
CSWG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2626
Calmar Ratio Rank
CSWG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2828
Martin Ratio Rank

EUMV.L
EUMV.L Risk / Return Rank: 1515
Overall Rank
EUMV.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1515
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EUMV.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1414
Sortino Ratio Rank
EUMV.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1414
Omega Ratio Rank
EUMV.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1515
Calmar Ratio Rank
EUMV.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1616
Martin Ratio Rank
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. EUMV.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 Ossiam Europe ESG Machine Learning ETF UCITS (EUR) (EUMV.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.LEUMV.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.58

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.81

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.23

1.12

+0.11

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.24

0.74

+0.50

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.99

2.57

+1.42

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

The current CSWG.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.22, which is higher than the EUMV.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CSWG.L and EUMV.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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CSWG.LEUMV.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.22

0.64

+0.58

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.64

0.56

+0.07

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

1.02

0.61

+0.41

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.03

0.62

+0.41

Drawdowns

CSWG.L vs. EUMV.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CSWG.L drawdown since its inception was -18.31%, smaller than the maximum EUMV.L drawdown of -24.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CSWG.L and EUMV.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CSWG.LEUMV.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-18.31%

-24.37%

+6.06%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.52%

-9.06%

-3.46%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.52%

-10.56%

-1.96%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-16.26%

-17.87%

+1.61%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-18.31%

-24.37%

+6.06%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-6.01%

-3.63%

-2.38%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.18%

-3.97%

-0.21%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.85%

2.62%

+1.23%

Volatility

CSWG.L vs. EUMV.L - Volatility Comparison

Amundi MSCI Switzerland UCITS ETF CHF (CSWG.L) has a higher volatility of 3.86% compared to Ossiam Europe ESG Machine Learning ETF UCITS (EUR) (EUMV.L) at 3.17%. This indicates that CSWG.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EUMV.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CSWG.LEUMV.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.86%

3.17%

+0.69%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.30%

8.77%

+1.53%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.69%

10.49%

+2.20%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.26%

12.19%

+2.07%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.57%

12.90%

+5.67%

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

CSWG.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than EUMV.L's 0.45% expense ratio.


Dividends

CSWG.L vs. EUMV.L - Dividend Comparison

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


CSWG.L and EUMV.L have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CSWG.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CSWG.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for EUMV.L.

CSWG.L tracks MSCI Switzerland NR CHF, while EUMV.L tracks MSCI Europe NR EUR. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and Natixis. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for CSWG.L and 0.45% for EUMV.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CSWG.L and EUMV.L

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