GINX vs. ACWV

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

GINX (SGI Enhanced Global Income ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds. GINX is actively managed, while ACWV is passively managed. Over the past year, GINX returned 29.12% vs 6.12% for ACWV. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GINX charges 0.98%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

GINX vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SGI Enhanced Global Income ETF (GINX) 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, GINX achieves a 14.33% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 3.64% return.

GINX

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: 0.58%
• 6M: 10.44%
• YTD: 14.33%
• 1Y: 29.12%
• 3Y*: —
• 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)

GINX vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GINX SGI Enhanced Global Income ETF	14.33%	25.06%	5.77%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	3.64%	11.04%	8.19%

Correlation

The correlation between GINX and ACWV is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 29, 2024	0.69

The correlation between GINX and ACWV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

GINX vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GINX	ACWV
Financial Services	31.1%	13.2%
Technology	11.1%	25.8%
Energy	9.6%	3.7%
Healthcare	9.5%	13.0%
Industrials	9.1%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	8.2%	9.8%
Utilities	5.7%	7.3%
Consumer Cyclical	5.7%	5.1%
Basic Materials	4.2%	1.5%
Communication Services	4.1%	11.9%
Real Estate	1.6%	0.6%

Return for Risk

GINX vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

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

GINX

GINX Risk / Return Rank: 86
GINX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
GINX Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
GINX Omega Ratio Rank: 88
GINX Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
GINX Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

GINX vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SGI Enhanced Global Income ETF (GINX) 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.

	GINX	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.44	0.77	+1.67
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.45	1.14	+2.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.14	+0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.28	0.97	+2.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.50	2.75	+9.75

GINX vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GINX Sharpe Ratio is 2.44, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GINX 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

GINX vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GINX drawdown since its inception was -12.53%, smaller than the maximum ACWV drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GINX and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	GINX	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.53%	-28.82%	+16.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.91%	-6.37%	-2.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-7.56%	—
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	0.00%	-1.70%	+1.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.76%	-3.11%	+1.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.34%	2.23%	+0.11%

Volatility

GINX vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SGI Enhanced Global Income ETF (GINX) is 3.02%, while iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) has a volatility of 3.29%. This indicates that GINX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GINX	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.02%	3.29%	-0.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.63%	6.28%	+3.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.01%	8.05%	+3.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.75%	10.28%	+3.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.75%	12.29%	+1.46%

GINX vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

GINX has a 0.98% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

GINX vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

GINX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.08%, more 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%
GINX SGI Enhanced Global Income ETF	2.08%	2.81%	2.97%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GINX and ACWV in my portfolio?

GINX and ACWV have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GINX or ACWV?

ACWV has higher volatility (3.29%) compared to GINX (3.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GINX dropped -12.53% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, GINX or ACWV?

On 1-year performance, GINX leads with 29.12% vs 6.12% for ACWV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, GINX has been the lower-risk option at 3.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GINX or ACWV?

Over the 1-year period, GINX has performed better with a 29.12% return vs 6.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GINX or ACWV?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.98% for GINX.

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

GINX has the higher dividend yield at 2.08%, compared with 1.94% for ACWV.

What is the main difference between GINX and ACWV?

They also come from different issuers: Summit Global Investments and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.98% for GINX and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GINX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.44 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.