PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GCLX.L vs. FWRA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GCLX.L vs. FWRA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF Acc (GCLX.L) and Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GCLX.L achieves a 36.06% return, which is significantly higher than FWRA.L's 12.15% return.


GCLX.L

1D
-0.90%
1M
3.33%
YTD
36.06%
6M
36.43%
1Y
88.67%
3Y*
5.24%
5Y*
-3.55%
10Y*

FWRA.L

1D
0.00%
1M
5.33%
YTD
12.15%
6M
12.33%
1Y
30.18%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GCLX.L vs. FWRA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
GCLX.L
Invesco Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF Acc
36.06%32.48%-25.40%-12.32%
FWRA.L
Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation
12.04%13.65%20.13%8.18%

Correlation

The correlation between GCLX.L and FWRA.L is 0.63, 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

0.63

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2023

0.60

The correlation between GCLX.L and FWRA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.63 - a consistent structural relationship.

GCLX.L vs. FWRA.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
GCLX.L
FWRA.L

Industrials

47.5%
11.0%

Utilities

16.1%
2.6%

Energy

13.6%
4.3%

Consumer Cyclical

10.2%
9.4%

Technology

6.8%
29.1%

Basic Materials

3.4%
3.9%

Consumer Defensive

0.9%
5.0%

Financial Services

0.9%
16.4%

Communication Services

-

8.9%

Healthcare

-

7.6%

Real Estate

-

1.9%

Industrials

GCLX.L
47.5%
FWRA.L
11.0%

Utilities

GCLX.L
16.1%
FWRA.L
2.6%

Energy

GCLX.L
13.6%
FWRA.L
4.3%

Consumer Cyclical

GCLX.L
10.2%
FWRA.L
9.4%

Technology

GCLX.L
6.8%
FWRA.L
29.1%

Basic Materials

GCLX.L
3.4%
FWRA.L
3.9%

Consumer Defensive

GCLX.L
0.9%
FWRA.L
5.0%

Financial Services

GCLX.L
0.9%
FWRA.L
16.4%

Communication Services

GCLX.L

-

FWRA.L
8.9%

Healthcare

GCLX.L

-

FWRA.L
7.6%

Real Estate

GCLX.L

-

FWRA.L
1.9%

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

GCLX.L vs. FWRA.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

GCLX.L
GCLX.L Risk / Return Rank: 9595
Overall Rank
GCLX.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9696
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GCLX.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9595
Sortino Ratio Rank
GCLX.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9494
Omega Ratio Rank
GCLX.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9595
Calmar Ratio Rank
GCLX.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9494
Martin Ratio Rank

FWRA.L
FWRA.L Risk / Return Rank: 7373
Overall Rank
FWRA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7272
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FWRA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
FWRA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
FWRA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
FWRA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7474
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

GCLX.L vs. FWRA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF Acc (GCLX.L) and Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.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.


GCLX.LFWRA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.67

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.43

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.67

1.49

+0.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

8.26

4.33

+3.93

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

27.52

16.50

+11.02

GCLX.L vs. FWRA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GCLX.L Sharpe Ratio is 4.21, which is higher than the FWRA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GCLX.L and FWRA.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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


GCLX.LFWRA.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.21

2.54

+1.67

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.14

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.24

1.44

-1.68

Drawdowns

GCLX.L vs. FWRA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GCLX.L drawdown since its inception was -69.45%, which is greater than FWRA.L's maximum drawdown of -17.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCLX.L and FWRA.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GCLX.LFWRA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-69.45%

-17.86%

-51.59%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.67%

-6.91%

-3.76%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-52.84%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-68.40%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-29.12%

-0.38%

-28.74%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-40.37%

-2.09%

-38.28%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.21%

1.82%

+1.39%

Volatility

GCLX.L vs. FWRA.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF Acc (GCLX.L) has a higher volatility of 8.47% compared to Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.L) at 3.67%. This indicates that GCLX.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FWRA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GCLX.LFWRA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.47%

3.67%

+4.80%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.49%

9.28%

+5.21%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.98%

11.79%

+9.19%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

25.59%

12.93%

+12.66%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

26.20%

12.93%

+13.27%

GCLX.L vs. FWRA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

GCLX.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than FWRA.L's 0.15% expense ratio.


Dividends

GCLX.L vs. FWRA.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither GCLX.L nor FWRA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


GCLX.L and FWRA.L have a correlation of 0.63, 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 0.60% for GCLX.L.

GCLX.L is categorized as Energy Equities, while FWRA.L is Global Equities. GCLX.L tracks S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD, while FWRA.L tracks FTSE All-World Index. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for GCLX.L and 0.15% for FWRA.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GCLX.L and FWRA.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