ICLU.L vs. FWRG.L
ICLU.L (Invesco USD AAA CLO UCITS ETF Acc) and FWRG.L (Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - ICLU.L is a CLO fund actively managed by Invesco, while FWRG.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the FTSE All-World Index. ICLU.L is actively managed, while FWRG.L is passively managed. Over the past year, ICLU.L returned 5.34% vs 30.35% for FWRG.L. At a 0.05 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ICLU.L charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for FWRG.L.
Performance
ICLU.L vs. FWRG.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ICLU.L achieves a 2.17% return, which is significantly lower than FWRG.L's 11.97% return.
ICLU.L
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.47%
- YTD
- 2.17%
- 6M
- 2.52%
- 1Y
- 5.34%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FWRG.L
- 1D
- -0.38%
- 1M
- 5.96%
- YTD
- 11.97%
- 6M
- 12.52%
- 1Y
- 30.35%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ICLU.L vs. FWRG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ICLU.L Invesco USD AAA CLO UCITS ETF Acc | 2.17% | 4.23% |
FWRG.L Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc | 11.97% | 9.00% |
Correlation
The correlation between ICLU.L and FWRG.L is -0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.01 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 11, 2025 | 0.05 |
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
ICLU.L vs. FWRG.L — Risk / Return Rank
ICLU.L
FWRG.L
ICLU.L vs. FWRG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco USD AAA CLO UCITS ETF Acc (ICLU.L) and Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc (FWRG.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.
| ICLU.L | FWRG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.29 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.29 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 2.27 | 1.56 | +0.71 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 8.47 | 4.23 | +4.24 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 39.67 | 17.11 | +22.56 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ICLU.L | FWRG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.22 | 2.93 | +1.29 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 3.37 | 1.51 | +1.86 |
Drawdowns
ICLU.L vs. FWRG.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ICLU.L drawdown since its inception was -0.91%, smaller than the maximum FWRG.L drawdown of -18.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICLU.L and FWRG.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ICLU.L | FWRG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -0.91% | -18.88% | +17.97% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.63% | -7.14% | +6.51% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.38% | +0.38% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.08% | -2.28% | +2.20% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.13% | 1.77% | -1.64% |
Volatility
ICLU.L vs. FWRG.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco USD AAA CLO UCITS ETF Acc (ICLU.L) is 0.19%, while Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc (FWRG.L) has a volatility of 2.96%. This indicates that ICLU.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FWRG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ICLU.L | FWRG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.19% | 2.96% | -2.77% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.82% | 7.69% | -6.87% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.26% | 10.33% | -9.07% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 1.46% | 12.41% | -10.95% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 1.46% | 12.41% | -10.95% |
ICLU.L vs. FWRG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
ICLU.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than FWRG.L's 0.15% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
ICLU.L vs. FWRG.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither ICLU.L nor FWRG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
ICLU.L and FWRG.L have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, FWRG.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FWRG.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for ICLU.L.
ICLU.L is categorized as CLO, while FWRG.L is Global Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for ICLU.L and 0.15% for FWRG.L.
Find the right allocation for ICLU.L and FWRG.L
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