IMID.L vs. FERGR.AS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IMID.L (SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI) is Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD, while FERGR.AS (Ferrari Group PLC) is a stock. Over the past year, IMID.L returned 30.66% vs -2.79% for FERGR.AS. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

IMID.L vs. FERGR.AS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI (IMID.L) and Ferrari Group PLC (FERGR.AS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

IMID.L is traded in USD, while FERGR.AS is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the FERGR.AS values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IMID.L achieves a 12.31% return, which is significantly higher than FERGR.AS's -15.79% return.

IMID.L

• 1D: -0.68%
• 1M: 4.49%
• YTD: 12.31%
• 6M: 13.92%
• 1Y: 30.66%
• 3Y*: 20.84%
• 5Y*: 10.97%
• 10Y*: —

FERGR.AS

• 1D: -3.36%
• 1M: -3.58%
• YTD: -15.79%
• 6M: -16.53%
• 1Y: -2.79%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

IMID.L vs. FERGR.AS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
IMID.L SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI	12.31%	17.38%
FERGR.AS Ferrari Group PLC	-15.79%	18.18%

Correlation

The correlation between IMID.L and FERGR.AS is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 14, 2025	0.49

Return for Risk

IMID.L vs. FERGR.AS — Risk / Return Rank

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

IMID.L

IMID.L Risk / Return Rank: 74
IMID.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
IMID.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
IMID.L Omega Ratio Rank: 73
IMID.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
IMID.L Martin Ratio Rank: 75

FERGR.AS

FERGR.AS Risk / Return Rank: 34
FERGR.AS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
FERGR.AS Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
FERGR.AS Omega Ratio Rank: 32
FERGR.AS Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
FERGR.AS Martin Ratio Rank: 36

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.

IMID.L vs. FERGR.AS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI (IMID.L) and Ferrari Group PLC (FERGR.AS). 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.

	IMID.L	FERGR.AS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.41	-0.08	+2.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.58	0.16	+3.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.02	+0.43
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.50	-0.08	+3.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.47	-0.17	+14.64
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IMID.L vs. FERGR.AS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IMID.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.41, which is higher than the FERGR.AS Sharpe Ratio of -0.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IMID.L and FERGR.AS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IMID.L	FERGR.AS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.41	-0.08	+2.49
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.71	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.56	-0.01	+0.57

Drawdowns

IMID.L vs. FERGR.AS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IMID.L drawdown since its inception was -39.56%, which is greater than FERGR.AS's maximum drawdown of -36.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMID.L and FERGR.AS.

Drawdown Indicators

	IMID.L	FERGR.AS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.56%	-36.14%	-3.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.69%	-36.14%	+27.45%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.21%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.07%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.68%	-31.89%	+31.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.40%	-11.05%	+5.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.11%	15.91%	-13.80%

Volatility

IMID.L vs. FERGR.AS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI (IMID.L) is 4.04%, while Ferrari Group PLC (FERGR.AS) has a volatility of 11.83%. This indicates that IMID.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FERGR.AS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IMID.L	FERGR.AS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.04%	11.83%	-7.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.94%	28.32%	-18.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.62%	36.41%	-23.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.54%	38.13%	-22.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.23%	38.13%	-16.90%

Dividends

IMID.L vs. FERGR.AS - Dividend Comparison

IMID.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FERGR.AS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.07%.

Position	TTM	2025
FERGR.AS Ferrari Group PLC	4.07%	3.46%
IMID.L SPDR MSCI ACWI IMI	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IMID.L and FERGR.AS in my portfolio?

IMID.L and FERGR.AS have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.