FWRG.L vs. RR.L

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

FWRG.L (Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc) is Global Equities fund tracking the FTSE All-World Index, while RR.L (Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC) is a stock. Over the past year, FWRG.L returned 27.51% vs 46.28% for RR.L. At a 0.36 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

FWRG.L vs. RR.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc (FWRG.L) and Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC (RR.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

FWRG.L is traded in USD, while RR.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the RR.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FWRG.L achieves a 10.64% return, which is significantly lower than RR.L's 13.72% return.

FWRG.L

• 1D: 1.78%
• 1M: 1.72%
• YTD: 10.64%
• 6M: 11.30%
• 1Y: 27.51%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RR.L

• 1D: 4.24%
• 1M: 7.52%
• YTD: 13.72%
• 6M: 20.08%
• 1Y: 46.28%
• 3Y*: 110.91%
• 5Y*: 62.35%
• 10Y*: 20.35%

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

FWRG.L vs. RR.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FWRG.L Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc	10.64%	13.84%	20.11%	8,531.38%
RR.L Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC	13.72%	120.24%	86.56%	93.92%

Correlation

The correlation between FWRG.L and RR.L is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2023	0.36

Return for Risk

FWRG.L vs. RR.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

FWRG.L

FWRG.L Risk / Return Rank: 87
FWRG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
FWRG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
FWRG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 89
FWRG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
FWRG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 85

RR.L

RR.L Risk / Return Rank: 79
RR.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
RR.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
RR.L Omega Ratio Rank: 75
RR.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
RR.L Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

FWRG.L vs. RR.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc (FWRG.L) and Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC (RR.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.

	FWRG.L	RR.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.58	1.22	+1.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.59	1.91	+1.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.23	+0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.84	2.31	+1.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.15	6.56	+8.59

FWRG.L vs. RR.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FWRG.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.58, which is higher than the RR.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FWRG.L and RR.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.

Drawdowns

FWRG.L vs. RR.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FWRG.L drawdown since its inception was -18.87%, smaller than the maximum RR.L drawdown of -92.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FWRG.L and RR.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FWRG.L	RR.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.87%	-92.32%	+73.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.14%	-19.98%	+12.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.51%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-64.03%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-89.47%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.57%	-3.49%	+1.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.26%	-36.66%	+34.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.81%	7.04%	-5.23%

Volatility

FWRG.L vs. RR.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc (FWRG.L) is 3.65%, while Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC (RR.L) has a volatility of 12.44%. This indicates that FWRG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RR.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FWRG.L	RR.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.65%	12.44%	-8.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.11%	32.55%	-24.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.63%	37.87%	-27.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4,484.46%	43.93%	+4,440.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4,484.46%	50.21%	+4,434.25%

Dividends

FWRG.L vs. RR.L - Dividend Comparison

FWRG.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RR.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.73%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FWRG.L Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RR.L Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC	0.73%	0.91%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.71%	1.41%	0.54%	1.75%	4.06%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FWRG.L and RR.L in my portfolio?

FWRG.L and RR.L have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.