FWRA.L vs. ICLU.L
FWRA.L (Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation) and ICLU.L (Invesco USD AAA CLO UCITS ETF Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - FWRA.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the FTSE All-World Index, while ICLU.L is a CLO fund actively managed by Invesco. FWRA.L is passively managed, while ICLU.L is actively managed. Over the past year, FWRA.L returned 28.82% vs 5.17% for ICLU.L. At a 0.05 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FWRA.L charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for ICLU.L.
Performance
FWRA.L vs. ICLU.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FWRA.L achieves a 11.59% return, which is significantly higher than ICLU.L's 2.18% return.
FWRA.L
- 1D
- -0.13%
- 1M
- 4.28%
- YTD
- 11.59%
- 6M
- 13.01%
- 1Y
- 28.82%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ICLU.L
- 1D
- 0.01%
- 1M
- 0.45%
- YTD
- 2.18%
- 6M
- 2.53%
- 1Y
- 5.17%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FWRA.L vs. ICLU.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
FWRA.L Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation | 11.59% | 18.48% |
ICLU.L Invesco USD AAA CLO UCITS ETF Acc | 2.18% | 4.23% |
Correlation
The correlation between FWRA.L and ICLU.L is -0.02, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.02 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 11, 2025 | 0.05 |
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
FWRA.L vs. ICLU.L — Risk / Return Rank
FWRA.L
ICLU.L
FWRA.L vs. ICLU.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.L) and Invesco USD AAA CLO UCITS ETF Acc (ICLU.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.
| FWRA.L | ICLU.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.80 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.71 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.43 | 2.23 | -0.80 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.27 | 8.20 | -4.93 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.70 | 38.46 | -24.76 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| FWRA.L | ICLU.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.32 | 4.12 | -1.80 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.56 | 3.37 | -1.80 |
Drawdowns
FWRA.L vs. ICLU.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FWRA.L drawdown since its inception was -16.60%, which is greater than ICLU.L's maximum drawdown of -0.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FWRA.L and ICLU.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FWRA.L | ICLU.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -16.60% | -0.91% | -15.69% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.74% | -0.63% | -8.11% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.77% | 0.00% | -0.77% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.93% | -0.08% | -1.85% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.09% | 0.13% | +1.96% |
Volatility
FWRA.L vs. ICLU.L - Volatility Comparison
Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.L) has a higher volatility of 3.80% compared to Invesco USD AAA CLO UCITS ETF Acc (ICLU.L) at 0.19%. This indicates that FWRA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ICLU.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FWRA.L | ICLU.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.80% | 0.19% | +3.61% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.86% | 0.82% | +9.04% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.32% | 1.26% | +11.06% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.52% | 1.46% | +12.06% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.52% | 1.46% | +12.06% |
FWRA.L vs. ICLU.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
FWRA.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than ICLU.L's 0.25% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
FWRA.L vs. ICLU.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither FWRA.L nor ICLU.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
FWRA.L and ICLU.L have a correlation of -0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, FWRA.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FWRA.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for ICLU.L.
FWRA.L is categorized as Global Equities, while ICLU.L is CLO. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for FWRA.L and 0.25% for ICLU.L.
Find the right allocation for FWRA.L and ICLU.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