PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IWFM.L vs. CSH2.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IWFM.L vs. CSH2.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IWFM.L (iShares Edge MSCI World Momentum Factor UCITS ETF (Acc)) and CSH2.L (Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP) are both exchange-traded funds - IWFM.L is a Momentum fund tracking the MSCI World Momentum Index, while CSH2.L is a Money Market fund actively managed by Amundi. IWFM.L is passively managed, while CSH2.L is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWFM.L returned 16.44%/yr vs 2.07%/yr for CSH2.L. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. IWFM.L charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for CSH2.L.

Performance

IWFM.L vs. CSH2.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares Edge MSCI World Momentum Factor UCITS ETF (Acc) (IWFM.L) and Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP (CSH2.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWFM.L achieves a 22.13% return, which is significantly higher than CSH2.L's 1.74% return. Over the past 10 years, IWFM.L has outperformed CSH2.L with an annualized return of 16.44%, while CSH2.L has yielded a comparatively lower 2.07% annualized return.

IWFM.L

1D
-0.86%
1M
6.96%
YTD
22.13%
6M
22.40%
1Y
34.99%
3Y*
26.24%
5Y*
14.83%
10Y*
16.44%

CSH2.L

1D
0.03%
1M
0.35%
YTD
1.74%
6M
2.06%
1Y
4.37%
3Y*
5.01%
5Y*
3.66%
10Y*
2.07%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWFM.L vs. CSH2.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWFM.L
iShares Edge MSCI World Momentum Factor UCITS ETF (Acc)		22.13%12.72%32.62%5.85%-8.21%15.58%24.16%23.25%1.62%20.40%
CSH2.L
Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP		1.74%4.67%5.61%4.72%1.54%0.13%0.30%0.82%0.70%0.42%

Correlation

The correlation between IWFM.L and CSH2.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 (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

-0.04

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

-0.02

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

-0.02

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 11, 2015

-0.02

IWFM.L vs. CSH2.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IWFM.L
CSH2.L

Technology

26.0%
35.9%

Industrials

18.7%
6.3%

Financial Services

13.1%
10.4%

Healthcare

10.7%
11.3%

Energy

10.6%
1.4%

Communication Services

6.8%
13.9%

Basic Materials

6.0%
1.0%

Utilities

3.7%
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

1.6%
13.9%

Consumer Defensive

1.5%
4.9%

Real Estate

1.4%
0.0%

Technology

IWFM.L
26.0%
CSH2.L
35.9%

Industrials

IWFM.L
18.7%
CSH2.L
6.3%

Financial Services

IWFM.L
13.1%
CSH2.L
10.4%

Healthcare

IWFM.L
10.7%
CSH2.L
11.3%

Energy

IWFM.L
10.6%
CSH2.L
1.4%

Communication Services

IWFM.L
6.8%
CSH2.L
13.9%

Basic Materials

IWFM.L
6.0%
CSH2.L
1.0%

Utilities

IWFM.L
3.7%
CSH2.L
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

IWFM.L
1.6%
CSH2.L
13.9%

Consumer Defensive

IWFM.L
1.5%
CSH2.L
4.9%

Real Estate

IWFM.L
1.4%
CSH2.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 Momentum Factor UCITS ETF (Acc)

Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP

Often compared with IWFM.L:
IWFM.L vs. SPMOIWFM.L vs. XDEM.DEIWFM.L vs. IMTMIWFM.L vs. IUMF.LIWFM.L vs. SPYIWFM.L vs. JPGL.LIWFM.L vs. ACWI
Often compared with CSH2.L:
CSH2.L vs. ERNS.LCSH2.L vs. MINV.LCSH2.L vs. BILSCSH2.L vs. ERNA.LCSH2.L vs. TI5G.LCSH2.L vs. LCSIXCSH2.L vs. AAPL

Return for Risk

IWFM.L vs. CSH2.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IWFM.L
IWFM.L Risk / Return Rank: 7272
Overall Rank
IWFM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWFM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWFM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
IWFM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWFM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8080
Martin Ratio Rank
CSH2.L
CSH2.L Risk / Return Rank: 9999
Overall Rank
CSH2.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9999
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CSH2.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9999
Sortino Ratio Rank
CSH2.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9999
Omega Ratio Rank
CSH2.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9999
Calmar Ratio Rank
CSH2.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9999
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.

IWFM.L vs. CSH2.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Edge MSCI World Momentum Factor UCITS ETF (Acc) (IWFM.L) and Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP (CSH2.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.

IWFM.LCSH2.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.16
8.05

-5.89

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.18
15.06

-11.88

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.39

4.37

-2.98

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.91

27.66

-23.75

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.27

159.04

-143.77

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

IWFM.L vs. CSH2.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWFM.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.16, which is lower than the CSH2.L Sharpe Ratio of 8.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWFM.L and CSH2.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

IWFM.LCSH2.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.16

8.05

-5.89

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.90

6.49

-5.59

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.98

4.68

-3.71

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.98

4.62

-3.64

Drawdowns

IWFM.L vs. CSH2.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFM.L drawdown since its inception was -22.58%, which is greater than CSH2.L's maximum drawdown of -0.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFM.L and CSH2.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IWFM.LCSH2.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-22.58%

-0.37%

-22.21%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.95%

-0.16%

-8.79%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.40%

-0.29%

-20.11%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.40%

-0.29%

-20.11%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-22.58%

-0.37%

-22.21%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.86%

0.00%

-0.86%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.94%

-0.00%

-4.94%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.30%

0.03%

+2.27%

Volatility

IWFM.L vs. CSH2.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares Edge MSCI World Momentum Factor UCITS ETF (Acc) (IWFM.L) has a higher volatility of 5.85% compared to Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP (CSH2.L) at 0.08%. This indicates that IWFM.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSH2.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IWFM.LCSH2.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.85%

0.08%

+5.77%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.75%

0.25%

+13.50%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.21%

0.54%

+15.67%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.47%

0.56%

+15.91%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.18%

0.44%

+16.74%

IWFM.L vs. CSH2.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWFM.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than CSH2.L's 0.07% 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

IWFM.L vs. CSH2.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither IWFM.L nor CSH2.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

IWFM.L and CSH2.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, CSH2.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CSH2.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for IWFM.L.

IWFM.L is categorized as Momentum, while CSH2.L is Money Market. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for IWFM.L and 0.07% for CSH2.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IWFM.L and CSH2.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