PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IBDW vs. ACWI
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IBDW vs. ACWI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Corporate ETF (IBDW) and iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBDW achieves a 0.14% return, which is significantly lower than ACWI's 12.13% return.


IBDW

1D
-0.10%
1M
0.11%
YTD
0.14%
6M
0.26%
1Y
5.40%
3Y*
5.87%
5Y*
10Y*

ACWI

1D
-0.83%
1M
5.28%
YTD
12.13%
6M
12.96%
1Y
29.18%
3Y*
21.15%
5Y*
11.28%
10Y*
12.85%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IBDW vs. ACWI - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
IBDW
iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Corporate ETF
0.14%9.07%2.96%9.40%-17.13%0.36%
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
12.13%22.41%17.45%22.27%-18.39%5.64%

Correlation

The correlation between IBDW and ACWI is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.37

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

0.32

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2021

0.27

The correlation between IBDW and ACWI shifts across timeframes, from 0.27 (all time) to 0.37 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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


Return for Risk

IBDW vs. ACWI — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBDW
IBDW Risk / Return Rank: 4646
Overall Rank
IBDW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4545
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IBDW Sortino Ratio Rank: 4949
Sortino Ratio Rank
IBDW Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
IBDW Calmar Ratio Rank: 4646
Calmar Ratio Rank
IBDW Martin Ratio Rank: 4646
Martin Ratio Rank

ACWI
ACWI Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
ACWI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6868
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWI Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWI Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWI Calmar Ratio Rank: 5959
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWI Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
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.

IBDW vs. ACWI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Corporate ETF (IBDW) and iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI). 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.


IBDWACWIDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.75

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.83

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

1.41

-0.14

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.24

3.01

-0.77

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.54

13.53

-5.98

IBDW vs. ACWI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBDW Sharpe Ratio is 1.54, which is lower than the ACWI Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBDW and ACWI, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


IBDWACWIDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.54

2.29

-0.75

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.71

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.75

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.06

0.43

-0.36

Drawdowns

IBDW vs. ACWI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBDW drawdown since its inception was -23.87%, smaller than the maximum ACWI drawdown of -56.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBDW and ACWI.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IBDWACWIDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-23.87%

-56.00%

+32.13%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-2.42%

-9.73%

+7.31%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-6.61%

-16.55%

+9.94%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.42%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-33.53%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.13%

-0.83%

-0.30%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.47%

-8.61%

-0.86%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.72%

2.16%

-1.44%

Volatility

IBDW vs. ACWI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Corporate ETF (IBDW) is 1.02%, while iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) has a volatility of 3.93%. This indicates that IBDW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ACWI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IBDWACWIDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.02%

3.93%

-2.91%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.42%

10.29%

-7.87%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.52%

12.78%

-9.26%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

7.26%

16.05%

-8.79%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

7.26%

17.11%

-9.85%

IBDW vs. ACWI - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBDW has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than ACWI's 0.32% expense ratio.


Dividends

IBDW vs. ACWI - Dividend Comparison

IBDW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.79%, more than ACWI's 1.38% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF
1.38%1.55%1.70%1.88%1.79%1.71%1.43%2.33%2.18%1.94%2.19%2.56%
IBDW
iShares iBonds Dec 2031 Term Corporate ETF
4.79%4.78%5.00%4.50%3.70%1.10%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


IBDW and ACWI have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ACWI has higher volatility (3.93%) compared to IBDW (1.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBDW dropped -23.87% vs ACWI's -56.00%.

On 3-year performance, ACWI leads with 21.15% vs 5.87% for IBDW. On fees, IBDW is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBDW has been the lower-risk option at 1.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, ACWI has performed better with a 21.15% return vs 5.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IBDW is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.32% for ACWI.

IBDW has the higher dividend yield at 4.79%, compared with 1.38% for ACWI.

IBDW is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while ACWI is Global Equities. IBDW tracks Bloomberg December 2031 Maturity Corporate Index, while ACWI tracks MSCI All Country World Index. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for IBDW and 0.32% for ACWI.

ACWI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 1.54), 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 IBDW and ACWI

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