PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CU2G.L vs. CSP1.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CU2G.L vs. CSP1.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CU2G.L (Amundi MSCI USA UCITS USD) and CSP1.L (iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CU2G.L is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 TR USD, while CSP1.L is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CU2G.L returned 15.40%/yr vs 16.22%/yr for CSP1.L. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. CU2G.L charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for CSP1.L.

Performance

CU2G.L vs. CSP1.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Amundi MSCI USA UCITS USD (CU2G.L) and iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSP1.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CU2G.L achieves a 12.15% return, which is significantly higher than CSP1.L's 10.49% return. Over the past 10 years, CU2G.L has underperformed CSP1.L with an annualized return of 15.40%, while CSP1.L has yielded a comparatively higher 16.22% annualized return.

CU2G.L

1D
-0.01%
1M
8.13%
YTD
12.15%
6M
12.93%
1Y
28.55%
3Y*
16.92%
5Y*
13.05%
10Y*
15.40%

CSP1.L

1D
-0.29%
1M
5.91%
YTD
10.49%
6M
10.33%
1Y
29.03%
3Y*
19.30%
5Y*
14.93%
10Y*
16.22%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CU2G.L vs. CSP1.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CU2G.L
Amundi MSCI USA UCITS USD		12.15%6.37%21.31%20.11%-10.63%29.15%16.42%26.58%-0.32%10.75%
CSP1.L
iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF		10.49%9.37%27.35%19.79%-9.05%31.07%13.65%26.42%0.01%10.83%

Correlation

The correlation between CU2G.L and CSP1.L is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.82

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

0.92

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

0.95

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

0.97

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2016

0.97

The correlation between CU2G.L and CSP1.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.82 (1 year) to 0.97 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CU2G.L vs. CSP1.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CU2G.L
CSP1.L

Technology

29.4%
38.0%

Healthcare

13.0%
8.4%

Financial Services

11.7%
11.3%

Consumer Cyclical

11.0%
9.9%

Communication Services

8.8%
10.7%

Industrials

8.4%
7.9%

Consumer Defensive

6.3%
4.7%

Energy

4.4%
3.4%

Real Estate

2.5%
1.9%

Utilities

2.3%
2.2%

Basic Materials

2.3%
1.7%

Technology

CU2G.L
29.4%
CSP1.L
38.0%

Healthcare

CU2G.L
13.0%
CSP1.L
8.4%

Financial Services

CU2G.L
11.7%
CSP1.L
11.3%

Consumer Cyclical

CU2G.L
11.0%
CSP1.L
9.9%

Communication Services

CU2G.L
8.8%
CSP1.L
10.7%

Industrials

CU2G.L
8.4%
CSP1.L
7.9%

Consumer Defensive

CU2G.L
6.3%
CSP1.L
4.7%

Energy

CU2G.L
4.4%
CSP1.L
3.4%

Real Estate

CU2G.L
2.5%
CSP1.L
1.9%

Utilities

CU2G.L
2.3%
CSP1.L
2.2%

Basic Materials

CU2G.L
2.3%
CSP1.L
1.7%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Amundi MSCI USA UCITS USD

iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF

Often compared with CU2G.L:
CU2G.L vs. CSPX.LCU2G.L vs. VWRD.LCU2G.L vs. SPYL.DECU2G.L vs. 500U.LCU2G.L vs. 500G.LCU2G.L vs. ACWL.LCU2G.L vs. 100D.L
Often compared with CSP1.L:
CSP1.L vs. CSPX.LCSP1.L vs. VUAG.LCSP1.L vs. SPYCSP1.L vs. IUSA.LCSP1.L vs. VUAA.LCSP1.L vs. SPY5.LCSP1.L vs. VOO

Return for Risk

CU2G.L vs. CSP1.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CU2G.L
CU2G.L Risk / Return Rank: 6868
Overall Rank
CU2G.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CU2G.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
CU2G.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
CU2G.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5858
Calmar Ratio Rank
CU2G.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5959
Martin Ratio Rank
CSP1.L
CSP1.L Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
CSP1.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CSP1.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
CSP1.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
CSP1.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
CSP1.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
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.

CU2G.L vs. CSP1.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi MSCI USA UCITS USD (CU2G.L) and iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSP1.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.

CU2G.LCSP1.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.43
2.72

-0.29

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.22
3.65

-0.43

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.44

1.51

-0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.86

4.06

-1.19

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.34

14.94

-4.60

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CU2G.L vs. CSP1.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CU2G.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.43, which is comparable to the CSP1.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CU2G.L and CSP1.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

CU2G.LCSP1.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.43

2.72

-0.29

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.90

1.04

-0.15

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.98

1.04

-0.05

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.00

1.09

-0.09

Drawdowns

CU2G.L vs. CSP1.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CU2G.L drawdown since its inception was -25.96%, roughly equal to the maximum CSP1.L drawdown of -25.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CU2G.L and CSP1.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CU2G.LCSP1.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-25.96%

-25.48%

-0.48%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.93%

-7.12%

-2.81%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.81%

-20.77%

-1.04%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.81%

-20.77%

-1.04%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-25.96%

-25.48%

-0.48%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.01%

-0.29%

+0.28%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.66%

-3.32%

-0.34%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.76%

1.94%

+0.82%

Volatility

CU2G.L vs. CSP1.L - Volatility Comparison

Amundi MSCI USA UCITS USD (CU2G.L) has a higher volatility of 3.21% compared to iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSP1.L) at 2.61%. This indicates that CU2G.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSP1.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CU2G.LCSP1.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.21%

2.61%

+0.60%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.38%

7.16%

+1.22%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.78%

10.70%

+1.08%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.57%

14.31%

+0.26%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.76%

15.58%

+0.18%

CU2G.L vs. CSP1.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CU2G.L has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than CSP1.L's 0.07% 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

CU2G.L vs. CSP1.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CU2G.L nor CSP1.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

CU2G.L and CSP1.L have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CSP1.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CSP1.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for CU2G.L.

CU2G.L is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while CSP1.L is S&P 500. CU2G.L tracks Russell 1000 TR USD, while CSP1.L tracks S&P 500 Index. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for CU2G.L and 0.07% for CSP1.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CU2G.L and CSP1.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