ETFT vs. ACWV
ETFT (Fundsmith Equity ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds. ETFT is actively managed, while ACWV is passively managed. Their 0.68 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. ETFT charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.
Performance
ETFT vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ETFT achieves a -1.19% return, which is significantly lower than ACWV's 5.75% return.
ETFT
- 1D
- -0.07%
- 1M
- -0.19%
- 6M
- -1.82%
- YTD
- -1.19%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
ACWV
- 1D
- -0.33%
- 1M
- 1.99%
- 6M
- 4.00%
- YTD
- 5.75%
- 1Y
- 8.69%
- 3Y*
- 10.41%
- 5Y*
- 5.79%
- 10Y*
- 7.18%
- ALL TIME*
- 8.75%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $12.13M | $11.24M | $12.40M | |
| $21.74K | $25.41K | $19.24K |
ETFT vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ETFT Fundsmith Equity ETF | -1.19% | 0.06% |
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF | 5.75% | -0.16% |
Correlation
The correlation between ETFT and ACWV is 0.68, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 2, 2025 | 0.68 |
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
ETFT vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank
ETFT
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
ACWV
ETFT vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fundsmith Equity ETF (ETFT) 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.
| ETFT | ACWV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.21 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 1.45 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 4.10 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ETFT vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ETFT drawdown since its inception was -14.77%, smaller than the maximum ACWV drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ETFT and ACWV.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ETFT | ACWV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.77% | -28.82% | +14.05% |
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 | -3.74% | -0.36% | -3.38% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.74% | -3.10% | -1.64% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 2.24% | — |
Volatility
ETFT vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ETFT | ACWV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 2.56% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 6.41% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.82% | 8.08% | +6.74% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.82% | 10.30% | +4.52% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 14.82% | 12.30% | +2.52% |
ETFT vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison
ETFT has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.
Dividends
ETFT vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison
ETFT has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ACWV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.90%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF | 1.90% | 2.09% | 2.33% | 2.41% | 2.18% | 1.92% | 1.77% | 2.54% | 2.32% | 2.04% | 2.56% | 2.28% |
ETFT Fundsmith Equity ETF | 0.00% | 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
ETFT and ACWV have a correlation of 0.68, 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 0.60% for ETFT.
ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.90%, compared with 0.00% for ETFT.
They also come from different issuers: Fundsmith and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for ETFT and 0.20% for ACWV.
Find the right allocation for ETFT 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