PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CUSS.L vs. RTWO.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CUSS.L vs. RTWO.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI USA Small Cap CTB Enhanced ESG UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CUSS.L) and L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap Quality UCITS ETF USD Acc (RTWO.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CUSS.L achieves a 16.17% return, which is significantly lower than RTWO.L's 20.10% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with CUSS.L having a 10.74% annualized return and RTWO.L not far ahead at 11.21%.


CUSS.L

1D
-0.63%
1M
-1.86%
6M
11.10%
YTD
16.17%
1Y
29.03%
3Y*
13.99%
5Y*
7.45%
10Y*
10.74%

RTWO.L

1D
0.57%
1M
1.17%
6M
14.38%
YTD
20.10%
1Y
33.31%
3Y*
16.35%
5Y*
8.50%
10Y*
11.21%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CUSS.L vs. RTWO.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CUSS.L
iShares MSCI USA Small Cap CTB Enhanced ESG UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
16.17%10.15%9.80%17.73%-17.15%18.55%18.55%26.39%-10.90%16.10%
RTWO.L
L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap Quality UCITS ETF USD Acc
20.10%11.33%9.23%20.05%-18.68%19.21%19.82%24.50%-12.20%13.96%

Correlation

The correlation between CUSS.L and RTWO.L is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.


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

0.96

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

0.96

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

0.97

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

0.97

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2010

0.94

The correlation between CUSS.L and RTWO.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

CUSS.L vs. RTWO.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CUSS.L
CUSS.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
CUSS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7474
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CUSS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
CUSS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
CUSS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8585
Calmar Ratio Rank
CUSS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
Martin Ratio Rank

RTWO.L
RTWO.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
RTWO.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RTWO.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
RTWO.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
RTWO.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
RTWO.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
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.

CUSS.L vs. RTWO.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI USA Small Cap CTB Enhanced ESG UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CUSS.L) and L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap Quality UCITS ETF USD Acc (RTWO.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.

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.


CUSS.LRTWO.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.03

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

0.00

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.33

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.74

3.65

+0.08

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.44

12.05

+0.38

CUSS.L vs. RTWO.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CUSS.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.90, which is comparable to the RTWO.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CUSS.L and RTWO.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...

Drawdowns

CUSS.L vs. RTWO.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CUSS.L drawdown since its inception was -42.70%, smaller than the maximum RTWO.L drawdown of -53.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CUSS.L and RTWO.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CUSS.LRTWO.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-42.70%

-53.86%

+11.16%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.38%

-9.08%

+0.70%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-27.77%

-26.96%

-0.81%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.73%

-29.71%

+0.98%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.70%

-42.01%

-0.69%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.61%

-1.25%

-2.36%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.94%

-9.95%

+3.01%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.52%

2.76%

-0.24%

Volatility

CUSS.L vs. RTWO.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI USA Small Cap CTB Enhanced ESG UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CUSS.L) has a higher volatility of 4.69% compared to L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap Quality UCITS ETF USD Acc (RTWO.L) at 4.39%. This indicates that CUSS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RTWO.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CUSS.LRTWO.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.69%

4.39%

+0.30%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.22%

12.94%

-0.72%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.59%

17.25%

-0.66%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.16%

21.05%

+0.11%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.92%

21.37%

-0.45%

CUSS.L vs. RTWO.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CUSS.L has a 0.43% expense ratio, which is higher than RTWO.L's 0.30% expense ratio.


Dividends

CUSS.L vs. RTWO.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CUSS.L nor RTWO.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.96, CUSS.L and RTWO.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

On fees, RTWO.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

RTWO.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.43% for CUSS.L.

CUSS.L tracks MSCI USA Small Cap ESG Enhanced CTB Index, while RTWO.L tracks Russell 2000 0.4 Quality Target Exposure Factor Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and L&G. Their fees differ too: 0.43% for CUSS.L and 0.30% for RTWO.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CUSS.L and RTWO.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