IGLT.L vs. HMWO.L
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Core UK Gilts UCITS ETF (IGLT.L) and HSBC MSCI World UCITS ETF (HMWO.L).
IGLT.L and HMWO.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. IGLT.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the FTSE Actuaries UK Conventional Gilts All Stocks Index. It was launched on Dec 1, 2006. HMWO.L is a passively managed fund by HSBC that tracks the performance of the MSCI ACWI NR USD. It was launched on Dec 8, 2010. Both IGLT.L and HMWO.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: IGLT.L or HMWO.L.
Key characteristics
| IGLT.L | HMWO.L | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | -2.73% | 18.99% |
| 1Y Return | 3.40% | 26.11% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | -9.02% | 8.96% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | -4.66% | 12.53% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | -0.07% | 12.49% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 0.49 | 2.58 |
| Sortino Ratio | 0.76 | 3.61 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.09 | 1.49 |
| Calmar Ratio | 0.12 | 4.10 |
| Martin Ratio | 1.18 | 18.58 |
| Ulcer Index | 3.10% | 1.40% |
| Daily Std Dev | 7.43% | 10.05% |
| Max Drawdown | -35.52% | -25.48% |
| Current Drawdown | -28.23% | 0.00% |
Correlation
The correlation between IGLT.L and HMWO.L is 0.13, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Performance
IGLT.L vs. HMWO.L - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, IGLT.L achieves a -2.73% return, which is significantly lower than HMWO.L's 18.99% return. Over the past 10 years, IGLT.L has underperformed HMWO.L with an annualized return of -0.07%, while HMWO.L has yielded a comparatively higher 12.49% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
IGLT.L vs. HMWO.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
IGLT.L has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than HMWO.L's 0.15% 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%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
IGLT.L vs. HMWO.L - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core UK Gilts UCITS ETF (IGLT.L) and HSBC MSCI World UCITS ETF (HMWO.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.
Dividends
IGLT.L vs. HMWO.L - Dividend Comparison
IGLT.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.02%, more than HMWO.L's 1.43% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IGLT.L iShares Core UK Gilts UCITS ETF | 3.02% | 2.40% | 1.32% | 0.79% | 0.95% | 1.25% | 1.31% | 1.30% | 1.88% | 2.05% | 2.04% | 2.14% |
HMWO.L HSBC MSCI World UCITS ETF | 1.43% | 1.60% | 1.75% | 1.27% | 1.55% | 1.97% | 2.11% | 1.91% | 1.84% | 1.86% | 1.72% | 1.95% |
Drawdowns
IGLT.L vs. HMWO.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IGLT.L drawdown since its inception was -35.52%, which is greater than HMWO.L's maximum drawdown of -25.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IGLT.L and HMWO.L. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
IGLT.L vs. HMWO.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares Core UK Gilts UCITS ETF (IGLT.L) and HSBC MSCI World UCITS ETF (HMWO.L) have volatilities of 3.02% and 2.92%, 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.