PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IWFQ.L vs. ACWV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IWFQ.L vs. ACWV

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

IWFQ.L (iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWFQ.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD, while ACWV is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWFQ.L returned 13.31%/yr vs 8.03%/yr for ACWV. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWFQ.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

IWFQ.L vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS (IWFQ.L) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWFQ.L achieves a 9.10% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 3.41% return. Over the past 10 years, IWFQ.L has outperformed ACWV with an annualized return of 13.31%, while ACWV has yielded a comparatively lower 8.03% annualized return.

IWFQ.L

1D
1.26%
1M
1.93%
YTD
9.10%
6M
9.45%
1Y
22.98%
3Y*
15.38%
5Y*
11.41%
10Y*
13.31%

ACWV

1D
0.42%
1M
0.57%
YTD
3.41%
6M
2.70%
1Y
6.87%
3Y*
7.76%
5Y*
6.55%
10Y*
8.03%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IWFQ.L vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWFQ.L
iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS		9.10%7.40%18.93%19.15%-9.55%25.17%10.93%25.86%-2.34%12.47%
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF		3.41%3.13%13.33%2.82%0.30%15.04%0.02%16.43%4.42%8.31%

Correlation

The correlation between IWFQ.L and ACWV is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.31

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

0.33

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

0.38

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

0.50

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 6, 2014

0.53

Over the past year, the correlation between IWFQ.L and ACWV has dropped to 0.31 - well below their long-term average of 0.53, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

IWFQ.L vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IWFQ.L
ACWV

Technology

32.0%
25.8%

Financial Services

14.3%
13.2%

Industrials

10.4%
8.1%

Communication Services

9.3%
11.9%

Consumer Cyclical

9.1%
5.1%

Healthcare

8.6%
13.0%

Consumer Defensive

4.8%
9.8%

Energy

4.0%
3.7%

Basic Materials

3.4%
1.5%

Utilities

2.5%
7.3%

Real Estate

1.6%
0.6%

Technology

IWFQ.L
32.0%
ACWV
25.8%

Financial Services

IWFQ.L
14.3%
ACWV
13.2%

Industrials

IWFQ.L
10.4%
ACWV
8.1%

Communication Services

IWFQ.L
9.3%
ACWV
11.9%

Consumer Cyclical

IWFQ.L
9.1%
ACWV
5.1%

Healthcare

IWFQ.L
8.6%
ACWV
13.0%

Consumer Defensive

IWFQ.L
4.8%
ACWV
9.8%

Energy

IWFQ.L
4.0%
ACWV
3.7%

Basic Materials

IWFQ.L
3.4%
ACWV
1.5%

Utilities

IWFQ.L
2.5%
ACWV
7.3%

Real Estate

IWFQ.L
1.6%
ACWV
0.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS

iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF

Often compared with IWFQ.L:
IWFQ.L vs. IUQF.LIWFQ.L vs. SWDA.LIWFQ.L vs. GGRA.LIWFQ.L vs. GERD.DEIWFQ.L vs. URTHIWFQ.L vs. GOGB.LIWFQ.L vs. MWMIX
Often compared with ACWV:
ACWV vs. USMVACWV vs. VTACWV vs. MVOL.LACWV vs. EFAVACWV vs. SPLVACWV vs. VOOACWV vs. XMW.TO

Return for Risk

IWFQ.L vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IWFQ.L
IWFQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
IWFQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8080
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWFQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8282
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWFQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
IWFQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7171
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWFQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank
ACWV
ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 2020
Overall Rank
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2121
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 1919
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 1919
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 2121
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.

IWFQ.L vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS (IWFQ.L) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.

IWFQ.LACWVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.23
0.83

+1.40

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.16
1.22

+1.93

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.42

1.14

+0.28

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.13

1.26

+1.87

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.32

3.10

+10.23

IWFQ.L vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWFQ.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.23, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWFQ.L and ACWV, 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

IWFQ.L vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWFQ.L drawdown since its inception was -40.49%, which is greater than ACWV's maximum drawdown of -20.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWFQ.L and ACWV.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IWFQ.LACWVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-40.49%

-20.27%

-20.22%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.01%

-5.16%

-1.85%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.20%

-8.10%

-12.10%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.20%

-9.56%

-10.64%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-23.91%

-20.27%

-3.64%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-1.85%

+1.85%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.98%

-3.29%

-5.69%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.65%

2.09%

-0.44%

Volatility

IWFQ.L vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS (IWFQ.L) has a higher volatility of 2.81% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 1.81%. This indicates that IWFQ.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IWFQ.LACWVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.81%

1.81%

+1.00%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.26%

5.86%

+1.40%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.86%

7.85%

+2.01%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.19%

9.76%

+9.43%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.33%

13.00%

+4.33%

IWFQ.L vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWFQ.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWFQ.L vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

IWFQ.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ACWV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.03%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF		2.03%2.09%2.33%2.41%2.18%1.92%1.77%2.54%2.32%2.04%2.56%2.28%
IWFQ.L
iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

IWFQ.L and ACWV have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for IWFQ.L.

IWFQ.L is categorized as Global Equities, while ACWV is Large Cap Blend Equities. IWFQ.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD, while ACWV tracks MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for IWFQ.L and 0.20% for ACWV.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IWFQ.L and ACWV

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