PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
GLOF vs. ACWV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

GLOF vs. ACWV

Last updated Jul 17, 2026
Documentation

GLOF (iShares Global Equity Factor ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds from iShares - GLOF tracks the STOXX Global Equity Factor Index while ACWV tracks the MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GLOF returned 11.99%/yr vs 6.99%/yr for ACWV. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.20% expense ratio.

Performance

GLOF vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLOF achieves a 12.20% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 3.64% return. Over the past 10 years, GLOF has outperformed ACWV with an annualized return of 11.99%, while ACWV has yielded a comparatively lower 6.99% annualized return.

GLOF

1D
-1.08%
1M
-0.95%
6M
9.67%
YTD
12.20%
1Y
23.49%
3Y*
20.21%
5Y*
11.82%
10Y*
11.99%

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)

GLOF vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
GLOF
iShares Global Equity Factor ETF		12.20%23.92%17.49%22.38%-16.97%18.68%10.00%23.21%-13.70%29.86%
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF		3.64%11.04%11.38%8.23%-10.36%13.97%3.04%21.04%-1.42%18.57%

Correlation

The correlation between GLOF and ACWV is 0.51, 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

0.51

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

0.62

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

0.73

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.73

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 4, 2015

0.70

The correlation between GLOF and ACWV shifts across timeframes, from 0.51 (1 year) to 0.73 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GLOF vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
GLOF
ACWV

Technology

32.2%
25.8%

Financial Services

16.0%
13.2%

Consumer Cyclical

10.6%
5.1%

Industrials

8.8%
8.1%

Communication Services

8.4%
11.9%

Healthcare

8.0%
13.0%

Consumer Defensive

5.1%
9.8%

Energy

3.9%
3.7%

Basic Materials

3.2%
1.5%

Utilities

2.8%
7.3%

Real Estate

1.1%
0.6%

Technology

GLOF
32.2%
ACWV
25.8%

Financial Services

GLOF
16.0%
ACWV
13.2%

Consumer Cyclical

GLOF
10.6%
ACWV
5.1%

Industrials

GLOF
8.8%
ACWV
8.1%

Communication Services

GLOF
8.4%
ACWV
11.9%

Healthcare

GLOF
8.0%
ACWV
13.0%

Consumer Defensive

GLOF
5.1%
ACWV
9.8%

Energy

GLOF
3.9%
ACWV
3.7%

Basic Materials

GLOF
3.2%
ACWV
1.5%

Utilities

GLOF
2.8%
ACWV
7.3%

Real Estate

GLOF
1.1%
ACWV
0.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Global Equity Factor ETF

iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF

Often compared with GLOF:
GLOF vs. VTGLOF vs. DYNFGLOF vs. IDMOGLOF vs. RODMGLOF vs. STLGGLOF vs. QWLDGLOF vs. VOO
Often compared with ACWV:
ACWV vs. USMVACWV vs. VTACWV vs. MVOL.LACWV vs. EFAVACWV vs. SPLVACWV vs. VOOACWV vs. XMW.TO

Return for Risk

GLOF vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
GLOF
GLOF Risk / Return Rank: 6868
Overall Rank
GLOF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6868
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GLOF Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
GLOF Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
GLOF Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
GLOF Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
ACWV
ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 2525
Overall Rank
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2525
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 2424
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 2525
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 2626
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.

GLOF vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF) 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.

GLOFACWVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.76
0.77

+0.99

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.46
1.14

+1.32

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.14

+0.17

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.61

0.97

+1.64

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.02

2.75

+8.27

GLOF vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLOF Sharpe Ratio is 1.76, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLOF 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.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

GLOF vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLOF drawdown since its inception was -34.12%, which is greater than ACWV's maximum drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLOF and ACWV.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

GLOFACWVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.12%

-28.82%

-5.30%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.05%

-6.37%

-2.68%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.12%

-7.56%

-8.56%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.15%

-18.14%

-7.01%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.12%

-28.82%

-5.30%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.64%

-1.70%

+0.06%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.07%

-3.11%

-2.96%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.14%

2.23%

-0.09%

Volatility

GLOF vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Equity Factor ETF (GLOF) has a higher volatility of 3.92% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 3.29%. This indicates that GLOF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

GLOFACWVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.92%

3.29%

+0.63%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.26%

6.28%

+4.98%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.43%

8.05%

+5.38%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.81%

10.28%

+5.53%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.07%

12.29%

+4.78%

GLOF vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GLOF and ACWV have an expense ratio of 0.20%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

GLOF vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

GLOF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.59%, less than ACWV's 1.94% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
GLOF
iShares Global Equity Factor ETF		1.59%1.70%2.59%2.51%2.53%1.90%1.73%2.41%2.03%1.94%1.94%0.92%

Frequently Asked Questions

GLOF and ACWV have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GLOF has higher volatility (3.92%) compared to ACWV (3.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLOF dropped -34.12% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

On 10-year performance, GLOF leads with 11.99% vs 6.99% for ACWV. Both ETFs have the same 0.20% expense ratio. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 3.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, GLOF has performed better with a 11.99% return vs 6.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

GLOF and ACWV have the same expense ratio: 0.20% per year.

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.94%, compared with 1.59% for GLOF.

GLOF tracks STOXX Global Equity Factor Index, while ACWV tracks MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index.

GLOF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.76 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GLOF and ACWV

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