PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IFSW.L vs. TDGB.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IFSW.L vs. TDGB.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IFSW.L (iShares Edge MSCI World Multifactor UCITS) and TDGB.L (VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF) are both Global Equities funds - IFSW.L tracks the MSCI ACWI NR USD while TDGB.L tracks the Morningstar Developed Markets Large Cap Dividend Leaders Screened Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IFSW.L returned 11.00%/yr vs 15.99%/yr for TDGB.L. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IFSW.L charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.38%/yr for TDGB.L.

Performance

IFSW.L vs. TDGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Edge MSCI World Multifactor UCITS (IFSW.L) and VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF (TDGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

IFSW.L is traded in USD, while TDGB.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the TDGB.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IFSW.L achieves a 12.41% return, which is significantly higher than TDGB.L's 6.46% return.

IFSW.L

1D
-0.50%
1M
5.52%
YTD
12.41%
6M
13.96%
1Y
30.93%
3Y*
22.01%
5Y*
11.00%
10Y*
11.78%

TDGB.L

1D
-1.51%
1M
-3.14%
YTD
6.46%
6M
10.55%
1Y
25.94%
3Y*
22.45%
5Y*
15.99%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IFSW.L vs. TDGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
IFSW.L
iShares Edge MSCI World Multifactor UCITS		12.41%25.73%17.05%15.35%-15.39%20.36%10.69%13.67%
TDGB.L
VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF		6.46%40.76%8.81%14.81%9.40%18.51%-2.72%14.01%

Correlation

The correlation between IFSW.L and TDGB.L is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.48

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

0.58

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

0.67

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 21, 2019

0.70

Over the past year, the correlation between IFSW.L and TDGB.L has dropped to 0.48 - well below their long-term average of 0.70, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

IFSW.L vs. TDGB.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IFSW.L
TDGB.L

Technology

31.9%
0.3%

Financial Services

19.3%
31.7%

Consumer Cyclical

10.7%
3.8%

Communication Services

8.0%
8.7%

Healthcare

7.7%
14.4%

Industrials

7.3%
3.9%

Consumer Defensive

5.7%
10.1%

Energy

3.9%
19.7%

Basic Materials

2.2%
1.2%

Utilities

2.1%
6.2%

Real Estate

0.9%
0.0%

Technology

IFSW.L
31.9%
TDGB.L
0.3%

Financial Services

IFSW.L
19.3%
TDGB.L
31.7%

Consumer Cyclical

IFSW.L
10.7%
TDGB.L
3.8%

Communication Services

IFSW.L
8.0%
TDGB.L
8.7%

Healthcare

IFSW.L
7.7%
TDGB.L
14.4%

Industrials

IFSW.L
7.3%
TDGB.L
3.9%

Consumer Defensive

IFSW.L
5.7%
TDGB.L
10.1%

Energy

IFSW.L
3.9%
TDGB.L
19.7%

Basic Materials

IFSW.L
2.2%
TDGB.L
1.2%

Utilities

IFSW.L
2.1%
TDGB.L
6.2%

Real Estate

IFSW.L
0.9%
TDGB.L
0.0%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares Edge MSCI World Multifactor UCITS

VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF

Often compared with IFSW.L:
IFSW.L vs. JPGL.DEIFSW.L vs. GERD.DEIFSW.L vs. HWWD.LIFSW.L vs. JPGL.LIFSW.L vs. VOOIFSW.L vs. IWDA.LIFSW.L vs. QWLD
Often compared with TDGB.L:
TDGB.L vs. VHYL.ASTDGB.L vs. SCHDTDGB.L vs. SPYDTDGB.L vs. LDEG.LTDGB.L vs. VHYD.LTDGB.L vs. JEGP.LTDGB.L vs. CSKR.L

Return for Risk

IFSW.L vs. TDGB.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IFSW.L
IFSW.L Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
IFSW.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7676
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IFSW.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
IFSW.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7676
Omega Ratio Rank
IFSW.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
IFSW.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
Martin Ratio Rank
TDGB.L
TDGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 8787
Overall Rank
TDGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
TDGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8686
Sortino Ratio Rank
TDGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8585
Omega Ratio Rank
TDGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
TDGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8787
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.

IFSW.L vs. TDGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Edge MSCI World Multifactor UCITS (IFSW.L) and VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF (TDGB.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.

IFSW.LTDGB.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.51
2.31

+0.20

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.77
3.12

+0.65

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.46

1.42

+0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.85

5.10

-1.25

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

16.31

14.46

+1.85

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IFSW.L vs. TDGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IFSW.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.51, which is comparable to the TDGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IFSW.L and TDGB.L, 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

IFSW.LTDGB.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.51

2.31

+0.20

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.70

1.12

-0.43

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.73

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.70

0.86

-0.16

Drawdowns

IFSW.L vs. TDGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IFSW.L drawdown since its inception was -34.49%, smaller than the maximum TDGB.L drawdown of -37.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IFSW.L and TDGB.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IFSW.LTDGB.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.49%

-37.43%

+2.94%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.99%

-5.06%

-2.93%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.98%

-13.67%

-2.31%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.41%

-18.93%

-5.48%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.49%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.50%

-3.84%

+3.34%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.12%

-4.33%

-0.79%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.89%

1.79%

+0.10%

Volatility

IFSW.L vs. TDGB.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares Edge MSCI World Multifactor UCITS (IFSW.L) and VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF (TDGB.L) have volatilities of 3.45% and 3.35%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IFSW.LTDGB.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.45%

3.35%

+0.10%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.52%

8.23%

+1.29%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.28%

11.17%

+1.11%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.76%

14.22%

+1.54%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.19%

16.80%

-0.61%

IFSW.L vs. TDGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

IFSW.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than TDGB.L's 0.38% expense ratio.

Dividends

IFSW.L vs. TDGB.L - Dividend Comparison

IFSW.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while TDGB.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.34%.

PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
IFSW.L
iShares Edge MSCI World Multifactor UCITS		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
TDGB.L
VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF		3.34%3.50%4.27%4.93%4.40%4.06%4.16%4.52%

Frequently Asked Questions

IFSW.L and TDGB.L have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, TDGB.L is cheaper at 0.38% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

TDGB.L is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for IFSW.L.

IFSW.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD, while TDGB.L tracks Morningstar Developed Markets Large Cap Dividend Leaders Screened Select Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for IFSW.L and 0.38% for TDGB.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IFSW.L and TDGB.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