GLDA.L vs. ACWL.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GLDA.L (Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C)) and ACWL.L (Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLDA.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold, while ACWL.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GLDA.L returned 19.92%/yr vs 12.39%/yr for ACWL.L. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLDA.L charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for ACWL.L.

Performance

GLDA.L vs. ACWL.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) (GLDA.L) and Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLDA.L achieves a 3.18% return, which is significantly lower than ACWL.L's 12.44% return.

GLDA.L

• 1D: -1.21%
• 1M: -2.91%
• YTD: 3.18%
• 6M: 4.27%
• 1Y: 33.20%
• 3Y*: 27.70%
• 5Y*: 19.92%
• 10Y*: —

ACWL.L

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 6.05%
• YTD: 12.44%
• 6M: 12.71%
• 1Y: 30.24%
• 3Y*: 18.94%
• 5Y*: 12.39%
• 10Y*: 13.73%

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

GLDA.L vs. ACWL.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
GLDA.L Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C)	3.18%	53.56%	28.19%	7.26%	12.68%	-3.12%	-2.69%
ACWL.L Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF	12.44%	13.63%	21.43%	13.09%	-8.59%	20.41%	30.70%

Correlation

The correlation between GLDA.L and ACWL.L is 0.10, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.10
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.03
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.01
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 19, 2020	0.01

Return for Risk

GLDA.L vs. ACWL.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLDA.L

GLDA.L Risk / Return Rank: 37
GLDA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
GLDA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
GLDA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 43
GLDA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
GLDA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 33

ACWL.L

ACWL.L Risk / Return Rank: 87
ACWL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
ACWL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
ACWL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 90
ACWL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
ACWL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

GLDA.L vs. ACWL.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) (GLDA.L) and Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.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.

	GLDA.L	ACWL.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.41	3.06	-1.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.84	4.15	-2.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.59	-0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.85	4.26	-2.42
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.02	17.67	-12.65
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GLDA.L vs. ACWL.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLDA.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.41, which is lower than the ACWL.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLDA.L and ACWL.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GLDA.L	ACWL.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.41	3.06	-1.65
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.40	1.90	-0.50
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	2.61	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.06	2.36	-1.31

Drawdowns

GLDA.L vs. ACWL.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLDA.L drawdown since its inception was -21.57%, which is greater than ACWL.L's maximum drawdown of -18.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLDA.L and ACWL.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLDA.L	ACWL.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.57%	-18.15%	-3.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.90%	-7.06%	-10.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.90%	-18.15%	+0.25%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.90%	-18.15%	+0.25%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-18.15%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.61%	-0.29%	-16.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.40%	-2.44%	-2.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.59%	1.71%	+4.88%

Volatility

GLDA.L vs. ACWL.L - Volatility Comparison

Amundi Physical Gold ETC (C) (GLDA.L) has a higher volatility of 5.18% compared to Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.L) at 2.64%. This indicates that GLDA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWL.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLDA.L	ACWL.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.18%	2.64%	+2.54%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.40%	7.02%	+13.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.46%	9.88%	+13.58%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.66%	16.54%	+1.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.02%	23.34%	-5.32%

GLDA.L vs. ACWL.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLDA.L has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than ACWL.L's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLDA.L vs. ACWL.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither GLDA.L nor ACWL.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLDA.L and ACWL.L in my portfolio?

GLDA.L and ACWL.L have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GLDA.L or ACWL.L?

On fees, GLDA.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLDA.L or ACWL.L?

GLDA.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for ACWL.L.

What is the main difference between GLDA.L and ACWL.L?

GLDA.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while ACWL.L is Global Equities. GLDA.L tracks Gold, while ACWL.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for GLDA.L and 0.45% for ACWL.L.