PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
INRG.L vs. ACWI
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

INRG.L vs. ACWI

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

INRG.L (iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and ACWI (iShares MSCI ACWI ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - INRG.L is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD, while ACWI is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI All Country World Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, INRG.L returned 11.85%/yr vs 13.60%/yr for ACWI. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. INRG.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.32%/yr for ACWI.

Performance

INRG.L vs. ACWI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.L) and iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

INRG.L is traded in GBp, while ACWI is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the ACWI values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, INRG.L achieves a 27.92% return, which is significantly higher than ACWI's 11.15% return. Over the past 10 years, INRG.L has underperformed ACWI with an annualized return of 11.85%, while ACWI has yielded a comparatively higher 13.60% annualized return.

INRG.L

1D
2.72%
1M
-4.22%
YTD
27.92%
6M
26.79%
1Y
62.65%
3Y*
2.79%
5Y*
0.55%
10Y*
11.85%

ACWI

1D
0.50%
1M
1.26%
YTD
11.15%
6M
11.06%
1Y
27.39%
3Y*
17.37%
5Y*
12.03%
10Y*
13.60%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

INRG.L vs. ACWI - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
INRG.L
iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)		27.92%34.16%-24.63%-23.98%5.40%-23.91%134.72%38.52%-3.45%9.49%
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF		11.15%13.69%19.50%16.16%-8.68%19.79%12.92%21.77%-3.80%13.58%

Correlation

The correlation between INRG.L and ACWI is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.43

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

0.33

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

0.36

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.43

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 28, 2008

0.46

The correlation between INRG.L and ACWI shifts across timeframes, from 0.33 (3 years) to 0.46 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

INRG.L vs. ACWI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
INRG.L
ACWI

Utilities

33.6%
2.6%

Industrials

26.5%
10.9%

Energy

25.8%
4.2%

Technology

11.4%
29.4%

Basic Materials

1.2%
3.7%

Consumer Cyclical

0.1%
9.3%

Communication Services

-

9.0%

Consumer Defensive

-

5.0%

Financial Services

-

16.1%

Healthcare

-

8.1%

Real Estate

-

1.8%

Utilities

INRG.L
33.6%
ACWI
2.6%

Industrials

INRG.L
26.5%
ACWI
10.9%

Energy

INRG.L
25.8%
ACWI
4.2%

Technology

INRG.L
11.4%
ACWI
29.4%

Basic Materials

INRG.L
1.2%
ACWI
3.7%

Consumer Cyclical

INRG.L
0.1%
ACWI
9.3%

Communication Services

INRG.L

-

ACWI
9.0%

Consumer Defensive

INRG.L

-

ACWI
5.0%

Financial Services

INRG.L

-

ACWI
16.1%

Healthcare

INRG.L

-

ACWI
8.1%

Real Estate

INRG.L

-

ACWI
1.8%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)

iShares MSCI ACWI ETF

Often compared with INRG.L:
INRG.L vs. ICLNINRG.L vs. TANINRG.L vs. RENW.DEINRG.L vs. V3AB.LINRG.L vs. ACESINRG.L vs. RENG.LINRG.L vs. WDNR.DE
Often compared with ACWI:
ACWI vs. VTACWI vs. SPYACWI vs. VWRL.LACWI vs. ACWXACWI vs. ACWI.LACWI vs. VOOACWI vs. VTI

Return for Risk

INRG.L vs. ACWI — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
INRG.L
INRG.L Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
INRG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
INRG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
INRG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7777
Omega Ratio Rank
INRG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
INRG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8080
Martin Ratio Rank
ACWI
ACWI Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
ACWI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWI Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWI Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWI Calmar Ratio Rank: 6161
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.

INRG.L vs. ACWI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.L) 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

INRG.LACWIDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.47
2.30

+0.17

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.25
3.01

+0.24

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.39

1.44

-0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.16

3.65

+0.51

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.58

14.78

-1.20

INRG.L vs. ACWI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current INRG.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.47, which is comparable to the ACWI Sharpe Ratio of 2.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of INRG.L 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...

Drawdowns

INRG.L vs. ACWI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum INRG.L drawdown since its inception was -92.06%, which is greater than ACWI's maximum drawdown of -38.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for INRG.L and ACWI.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

INRG.LACWIDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-92.06%

-38.18%

-53.88%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.97%

-7.53%

-7.44%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-43.59%

-17.98%

-25.61%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-57.62%

-17.98%

-39.64%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-65.78%

-26.56%

-39.22%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-60.98%

-1.74%

-59.24%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-74.79%

-5.13%

-69.66%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.60%

1.86%

+2.74%

Volatility

INRG.L vs. ACWI - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.L) has a higher volatility of 10.42% compared to iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI) at 4.53%. This indicates that INRG.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

INRG.LACWIDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.42%

4.53%

+5.89%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

19.10%

9.50%

+9.60%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

25.23%

11.94%

+13.29%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

25.01%

14.27%

+10.74%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.43%

16.50%

+8.93%

INRG.L vs. ACWI - Expense Ratio Comparison

INRG.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWI's 0.32% expense ratio.

Dividends

INRG.L vs. ACWI - Dividend Comparison

INRG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%, less than ACWI's 1.40% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ACWI
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF		1.40%1.55%1.70%1.88%1.79%1.71%1.43%2.33%2.18%1.94%2.19%2.56%
INRG.L
iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)		0.89%1.34%1.24%0.80%0.51%0.74%0.48%1.60%2.81%2.83%2.73%2.55%

Frequently Asked Questions

INRG.L and ACWI have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ACWI is cheaper at 0.32% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ACWI is cheaper with a 0.32% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for INRG.L.

INRG.L is categorized as Energy Equities, while ACWI is Global Equities. INRG.L tracks S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD, while ACWI tracks MSCI All Country World Index. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for INRG.L and 0.32% for ACWI.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for INRG.L 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