GLOW vs. ACWV

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GLOW (VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds. GLOW is actively managed, while ACWV is passively managed. Over the past year, GLOW returned 23.53% vs 8.69% for ACWV. Their 0.66 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. GLOW charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

GLOW vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF (GLOW) 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, GLOW achieves a 11.30% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 5.75% return.

GLOW

• 1D: -0.18%
• 1M: -0.86%
• 6M: 8.35%
• YTD: 11.30%
• 1Y: 23.53%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 17.70%

ACWV

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: 1.99%
• 6M: 4.00%
• YTD: 5.75%
• 1Y: 8.69%
• 3Y*: 10.41%
• 5Y*: 5.79%
• 10Y*: 7.18%
• ALL TIME*: 8.75%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	$12.13M	$11.24M	$12.40M
GLOW VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF	$210.60K	$374.13K	$387.50K

GLOW vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GLOW VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF	11.30%	21.29%	4.44%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	5.75%	11.04%	5.77%

Correlation

The correlation between GLOW and ACWV is 0.56, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 21, 2024	0.66

The correlation between GLOW and ACWV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

GLOW vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GLOW	ACWV
Technology	27.3%	25.3%
Financial Services	20.1%	13.5%
Healthcare	15.3%	13.8%
Industrials	8.9%	8.1%
Communication Services	7.9%	11.3%
Consumer Cyclical	6.7%	5.3%
Basic Materials	4.8%	1.5%
Utilities	4.4%	7.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.1%	9.7%
Energy	1.5%	3.5%
Real Estate	1.0%	0.6%

Return for Risk

GLOW vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

GLOW

GLOW Risk / Return Rank: 74
GLOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
GLOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
GLOW Omega Ratio Rank: 73
GLOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
GLOW Martin Ratio Rank: 78

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 44
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 45
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 39

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GLOW vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF (GLOW) 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.

	GLOW	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.72	1.14	+0.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.43	1.71	+0.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.21	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.41	1.45	+0.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.06	4.10	+5.95

GLOW vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLOW Sharpe Ratio is 1.72, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLOW 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

GLOW vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLOW drawdown since its inception was -15.58%, smaller than the maximum ACWV drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLOW and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLOW	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.58%	-28.82%	+13.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.33%	-6.37%	-2.96%
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	-1.59%	-0.36%	-1.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.77%	-3.10%	+1.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.23%	2.24%	-0.01%

Volatility

GLOW vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF (GLOW) has a higher volatility of 3.45% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 2.56%. This indicates that GLOW'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.

Volatility by Period

	GLOW	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.45%	2.56%	+0.89%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.78%	6.41%	+4.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.07%	8.08%	+4.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.13%	10.30%	+4.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.13%	12.30%	+2.83%

GLOW vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLOW has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLOW vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

GLOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.24%, less than ACWV's 1.90% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	1.90%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
GLOW VictoryShares WestEnd Global Equity ETF	1.24%	1.33%	1.18%	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 GLOW and ACWV in my portfolio?

GLOW and ACWV have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GLOW or ACWV?

GLOW has higher volatility (3.45%) compared to ACWV (2.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLOW dropped -15.58% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, GLOW or ACWV?

On 1-year performance, GLOW leads with 23.53% vs 8.69% for ACWV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 2.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLOW or ACWV?

Over the 1-year period, GLOW has performed better with a 23.53% return vs 8.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLOW or ACWV?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for GLOW.

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

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.90%, compared with 1.24% for GLOW.

What is the main difference between GLOW and ACWV?

They also come from different issuers: VictoryShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for GLOW and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.72 vs 1.14), 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.