FPAG vs. ACWV

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

FPAG (FPA Global Equity ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds. FPAG is actively managed, while ACWV is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FPAG returned 19.64%/yr vs 9.83%/yr for ACWV. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FPAG charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

FPAG vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FPA Global Equity ETF (FPAG) 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, FPAG achieves a 10.98% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 3.64% return.

FPAG

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 1.46%
• 6M: 6.06%
• YTD: 10.98%
• 1Y: 21.82%
• 3Y*: 19.64%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ACWV

• 1D: 0.82%
• 1M: 0.81%
• 6M: 2.67%
• YTD: 3.64%
• 1Y: 6.12%
• 3Y*: 9.83%
• 5Y*: 5.48%
• 10Y*: 6.99%

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

FPAG vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FPAG FPA Global Equity ETF	10.98%	25.17%	15.64%	29.55%	-17.87%	3.26%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	3.64%	11.04%	11.38%	8.23%	-10.36%	0.96%

Correlation

The correlation between FPAG and ACWV is 0.60, 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	0.60
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.62
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 17, 2021	0.68

The correlation between FPAG and ACWV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

FPAG vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FPAG	ACWV
Communication Services	16.2%	11.9%
Basic Materials	14.0%	1.5%
Technology	13.8%	25.8%
Healthcare	13.7%	13.0%
Industrials	12.4%	8.1%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	5.1%
Financial Services	9.7%	13.2%
Consumer Defensive	8.7%	9.8%
Energy	1.3%	3.7%
Utilities	0.2%	7.3%
Real Estate	0.0%	0.6%

Return for Risk

FPAG vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

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

FPAG

FPAG Risk / Return Rank: 50
FPAG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
FPAG Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
FPAG Omega Ratio Rank: 51
FPAG Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
FPAG Martin Ratio Rank: 50

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 25
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 24
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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.

FPAG vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FPA Global Equity ETF (FPAG) 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.

	FPAG	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.45	0.77	+0.68
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.11	1.14	+0.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.14	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.81	0.97	+0.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.78	2.75	+4.03

FPAG vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FPAG Sharpe Ratio is 1.45, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FPAG 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

FPAG vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FPAG drawdown since its inception was -28.43%, roughly equal to the maximum ACWV drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FPAG and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	FPAG	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.43%	-28.82%	+0.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.14%	-6.37%	-5.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.06%	-7.56%	-10.50%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.14%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-28.82%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.05%	-1.70%	+1.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.23%	-3.11%	-3.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.23%	2.23%	+1.00%

Volatility

FPAG vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

FPA Global Equity ETF (FPAG) has a higher volatility of 4.04% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 3.29%. This indicates that FPAG'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

	FPAG	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.04%	3.29%	+0.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.18%	6.28%	+5.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.13%	8.05%	+7.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.32%	10.28%	+9.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.32%	12.29%	+7.03%

FPAG vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

FPAG has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

FPAG vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

FPAG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.31%, less than ACWV's 1.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	1.94%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
FPAG FPA Global Equity ETF	1.31%	1.99%	1.42%	1.51%	1.22%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FPAG and ACWV in my portfolio?

FPAG and ACWV have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FPAG or ACWV?

FPAG has higher volatility (4.04%) compared to ACWV (3.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FPAG dropped -28.43% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, FPAG or ACWV?

On 3-year performance, FPAG leads with 19.64% vs 9.83% for ACWV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 3.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FPAG or ACWV?

Over the 3-year period, FPAG has performed better with a 19.64% return vs 9.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FPAG or ACWV?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for FPAG.

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

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.94%, compared with 1.31% for FPAG.

What is the main difference between FPAG and ACWV?

They also come from different issuers: FPA and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for FPAG and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FPAG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.45 vs 0.77), 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.