PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GENE.L vs. FCSG.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GENE.L vs. FCSG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in UBS ETF (IE) Global Gender Equality UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (GENE.L) and First Trust Global Capital Strength ESG Leaders UCITS ETF Class A Accumulation (FCSG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GENE.L achieves a 3.70% return, which is significantly higher than FCSG.L's -1.69% return.


GENE.L

1D
0.53%
1M
-0.47%
YTD
3.70%
6M
4.93%
1Y
17.11%
3Y*
12.36%
5Y*
8.55%
10Y*

FCSG.L

1D
0.72%
1M
1.07%
YTD
-1.69%
6M
-1.08%
1Y
0.29%
3Y*
6.29%
5Y*
5.92%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GENE.L vs. FCSG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
GENE.L
UBS ETF (IE) Global Gender Equality UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc
3.70%14.86%10.70%11.06%-1.37%11.78%
FCSG.L
First Trust Global Capital Strength ESG Leaders UCITS ETF Class A Accumulation
-1.69%3.93%11.42%6.17%-3.68%23.55%

Correlation

The correlation between GENE.L and FCSG.L is 0.64, 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

0.64

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.67

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.71

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 11, 2021

0.71

The correlation between GENE.L and FCSG.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

GENE.L vs. FCSG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
GENE.L
FCSG.L

Financial Services

26.3%
29.4%

Healthcare

12.8%
5.7%

Consumer Cyclical

11.2%
4.0%

Consumer Defensive

10.4%
20.9%

Utilities

8.3%

-

Communication Services

7.8%
3.8%

Real Estate

6.8%

-

Basic Materials

5.8%
4.6%

Technology

5.3%
14.0%

Industrials

5.3%
17.7%

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

GENE.L
26.3%
FCSG.L
29.4%

Healthcare

GENE.L
12.8%
FCSG.L
5.7%

Consumer Cyclical

GENE.L
11.2%
FCSG.L
4.0%

Consumer Defensive

GENE.L
10.4%
FCSG.L
20.9%

Utilities

GENE.L
8.3%
FCSG.L

-

Communication Services

GENE.L
7.8%
FCSG.L
3.8%

Real Estate

GENE.L
6.8%
FCSG.L

-

Basic Materials

GENE.L
5.8%
FCSG.L
4.6%

Technology

GENE.L
5.3%
FCSG.L
14.0%

Industrials

GENE.L
5.3%
FCSG.L
17.7%

Energy

GENE.L

-

FCSG.L

-

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

GENE.L vs. FCSG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

GENE.L
GENE.L Risk / Return Rank: 4848
Overall Rank
GENE.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4747
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GENE.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4848
Sortino Ratio Rank
GENE.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4545
Omega Ratio Rank
GENE.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5151
Calmar Ratio Rank
GENE.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5151
Martin Ratio Rank

FCSG.L
FCSG.L Risk / Return Rank: 99
Overall Rank
FCSG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FCSG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
Sortino Ratio Rank
FCSG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 88
Omega Ratio Rank
FCSG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
Calmar Ratio Rank
FCSG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 99
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.

GENE.L vs. FCSG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for UBS ETF (IE) Global Gender Equality UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (GENE.L) and First Trust Global Capital Strength ESG Leaders UCITS ETF Class A Accumulation (FCSG.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.


GENE.LFCSG.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.62

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+2.26

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.01

+0.28

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.49

-0.01

+2.50

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.57

-0.04

+8.61

GENE.L vs. FCSG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GENE.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.61, which is higher than the FCSG.L Sharpe Ratio of -0.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GENE.L and FCSG.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


GENE.LFCSG.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.61

-0.01

+1.62

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.66

0.55

+0.11

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.67

0.67

-0.01

Drawdowns

GENE.L vs. FCSG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GENE.L drawdown since its inception was -28.65%, which is greater than FCSG.L's maximum drawdown of -11.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GENE.L and FCSG.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GENE.LFCSG.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.65%

-11.39%

-17.26%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.79%

-7.80%

+1.01%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.04%

-9.70%

-5.34%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-15.04%

-11.39%

-3.65%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.85%

-4.95%

+3.10%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.70%

-2.65%

-1.05%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.97%

3.12%

-1.15%

Volatility

GENE.L vs. FCSG.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for UBS ETF (IE) Global Gender Equality UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (GENE.L) is 2.59%, while First Trust Global Capital Strength ESG Leaders UCITS ETF Class A Accumulation (FCSG.L) has a volatility of 2.83%. This indicates that GENE.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FCSG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GENE.LFCSG.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.59%

2.83%

-0.24%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.14%

6.95%

+1.19%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.52%

8.82%

+1.70%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.96%

10.70%

+2.26%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.92%

10.67%

+4.25%

GENE.L vs. FCSG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

GENE.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than FCSG.L's 0.75% expense ratio.


Dividends

GENE.L vs. FCSG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither GENE.L nor FCSG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


GENE.L and FCSG.L have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, GENE.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

GENE.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for FCSG.L.

Both ETFs track MSCI ACWI NR USD. They also come from different issuers: UBS and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for GENE.L and 0.75% for FCSG.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GENE.L and FCSG.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