FDG vs. ACWV

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

FDG (American Century Focused Dynamic Growth ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds. FDG is actively managed, while ACWV is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FDG returned 10.00%/yr vs 5.49%/yr for ACWV. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FDG charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

FDG vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in American Century Focused Dynamic Growth ETF (FDG) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FDG achieves a 3.50% return, which is significantly lower than ACWV's 3.83% return.

FDG

• 1D: -1.92%
• 1M: -0.37%
• 6M: 1.28%
• YTD: 3.50%
• 1Y: 20.28%
• 3Y*: 24.61%
• 5Y*: 10.00%
• 10Y*: —

ACWV

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 0.92%
• 6M: 2.66%
• YTD: 3.83%
• 1Y: 6.41%
• 3Y*: 9.88%
• 5Y*: 5.49%
• 10Y*: 7.02%

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

FDG vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FDG American Century Focused Dynamic Growth ETF	3.50%	22.13%	45.89%	37.22%	-35.74%	8.52%	96.27%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	3.83%	11.04%	11.38%	8.23%	-10.36%	13.97%	26.70%

Correlation

The correlation between FDG and ACWV is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.27
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.35
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 2, 2020	0.54

Over the past year, the correlation between FDG and ACWV has dropped to 0.27 - well below their long-term average of 0.54, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

FDG vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDG	ACWV
Technology	37.7%	25.8%
Communication Services	21.5%	11.9%
Consumer Cyclical	17.1%	5.1%
Healthcare	13.2%	13.0%
Industrials	5.2%	8.1%
Financial Services	4.7%	13.2%
Energy	0.6%	3.7%
Utilities	0.1%	7.3%
Basic Materials	-	1.5%
Consumer Defensive	-	9.8%
Real Estate	-	0.6%

Return for Risk

FDG vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDG

FDG Risk / Return Rank: 34
FDG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
FDG Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
FDG Omega Ratio Rank: 34
FDG Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
FDG Martin Ratio Rank: 35

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 26
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 25
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

FDG vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for American Century Focused Dynamic Growth ETF (FDG) 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.

	FDG	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.05	0.80	+0.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.50	1.18	+0.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.15	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.30	1.01	+0.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.17	2.89	+1.28

FDG vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDG Sharpe Ratio is 1.05, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDG and ACWV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

FDG vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDG drawdown since its inception was -43.69%, which is greater than ACWV's maximum drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDG and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDG	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.69%	-28.82%	-14.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.71%	-6.37%	-9.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.14%	-7.56%	-18.58%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-43.69%	-18.14%	-25.55%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-28.82%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.75%	-1.52%	-5.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.30%	-3.11%	-10.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.87%	2.22%	+2.65%

Volatility

FDG vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

American Century Focused Dynamic Growth ETF (FDG) has a higher volatility of 7.12% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 3.17%. This indicates that FDG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDG	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.12%	3.17%	+3.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.07%	6.23%	+9.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.49%	8.07%	+11.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.94%	10.27%	+14.67%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.95%	12.29%	+12.66%

FDG vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDG has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDG vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

FDG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ACWV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.93%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	1.93%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
FDG American Century Focused Dynamic Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDG and ACWV in my portfolio?

FDG and ACWV have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FDG or ACWV?

FDG has higher volatility (7.12%) compared to ACWV (3.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDG dropped -43.69% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, FDG or ACWV?

On 5-year performance, FDG leads with 10.00% vs 5.49% for ACWV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 3.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDG or ACWV?

Over the 5-year period, FDG has performed better with a 10.00% return vs 5.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDG or ACWV?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for FDG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FDG or ACWV?

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.93%, compared with 0.00% for FDG.

What is the main difference between FDG and ACWV?

They also come from different issuers: American Century and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for FDG and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FDG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.05 vs 0.80), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.