IAUM vs. ACWV

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

IAUM (iShares Gold Trust Micro) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IAUM is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM, while ACWV is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IAUM returned 29.28%/yr vs 9.98%/yr for ACWV. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IAUM charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

IAUM vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Gold Trust Micro (IAUM) 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, IAUM achieves a -2.40% return, which is significantly lower than ACWV's 2.88% return.

IAUM

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: -9.51%
• YTD: -2.40%
• 6M: -2.08%
• 1Y: 22.55%
• 3Y*: 29.28%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ACWV

• 1D: 0.34%
• 1M: 0.59%
• YTD: 2.88%
• 6M: 2.95%
• 1Y: 5.56%
• 3Y*: 9.98%
• 5Y*: 5.46%
• 10Y*: 7.48%

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

IAUM vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
IAUM iShares Gold Trust Micro	-2.40%	64.27%	27.04%	13.12%	-0.49%	3.87%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	2.88%	11.04%	11.38%	8.23%	-10.36%	6.21%

Correlation

The correlation between IAUM and ACWV is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.25
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.26
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 29, 2021	0.24

IAUM vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IAUM	ACWV
Real Estate	100.0%	0.8%
Basic Materials	-	1.8%
Communication Services	-	12.2%
Consumer Cyclical	-	5.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	10.3%
Energy	-	3.4%
Financial Services	-	13.1%
Healthcare	-	13.2%
Industrials	-	7.9%
Technology	-	22.6%
Utilities	-	7.8%

Return for Risk

IAUM vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

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

IAUM

IAUM Risk / Return Rank: 27
IAUM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
IAUM Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
IAUM Omega Ratio Rank: 31
IAUM Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
IAUM Martin Ratio Rank: 25

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 20
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 19
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 21

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.

IAUM vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Trust Micro (IAUM) 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.

	IAUM	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.90	0.62	+0.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.26	0.91	+0.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.11	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.00	0.76	+0.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.87	2.31	+0.56

IAUM vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IAUM Sharpe Ratio is 0.90, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IAUM 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

IAUM vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IAUM drawdown since its inception was -24.37%, smaller than the maximum ACWV drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IAUM and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	IAUM	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.37%	-28.82%	+4.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.37%	-6.37%	-18.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.37%	-7.56%	-16.81%
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	-21.99%	-2.42%	-19.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.38%	-3.11%	-2.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.46%	2.10%	+6.36%

Volatility

IAUM vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

iShares Gold Trust Micro (IAUM) has a higher volatility of 7.71% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 2.18%. This indicates that IAUM'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

	IAUM	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.71%	2.18%	+5.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.82%	5.63%	+18.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.06%	7.80%	+19.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.05%	10.23%	+7.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.05%	12.30%	+5.75%

IAUM vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

IAUM has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

IAUM vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

IAUM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ACWV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.03%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	2.03%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
IAUM iShares Gold Trust Micro	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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 IAUM and ACWV in my portfolio?

IAUM and ACWV have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IAUM or ACWV?

IAUM has higher volatility (7.71%) compared to ACWV (2.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IAUM dropped -24.37% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, IAUM or ACWV?

On 3-year performance, IAUM leads with 29.28% vs 9.98% for ACWV. On fees, IAUM is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 2.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IAUM or ACWV?

Over the 3-year period, IAUM has performed better with a 29.28% return vs 9.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IAUM or ACWV?

IAUM is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for ACWV.

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

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 2.03%, compared with 0.00% for IAUM.

What is the main difference between IAUM and ACWV?

IAUM is categorized as Gold, while ACWV is Large Cap Blend Equities. IAUM tracks LBMA Gold Price PM, while ACWV tracks MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for IAUM and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IAUM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.90 vs 0.62), 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.