LGGG.L vs. RENG.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

LGGG.L (L&G Global Equity UCITS ETF) and RENG.L (L&G Clean Energy UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LGGG.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD, while RENG.L is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LGGG.L returned 12.29%/yr vs 6.31%/yr for RENG.L. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LGGG.L charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for RENG.L.

Performance

LGGG.L vs. RENG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G Global Equity UCITS ETF (LGGG.L) and L&G Clean Energy UCITS ETF (RENG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LGGG.L achieves a 10.04% return, which is significantly lower than RENG.L's 25.44% return.

LGGG.L

• 1D: -0.56%
• 1M: -0.29%
• 6M: 8.79%
• YTD: 10.04%
• 1Y: 21.35%
• 3Y*: 17.96%
• 5Y*: 12.29%
• 10Y*: —

RENG.L

• 1D: -1.90%
• 1M: -7.73%
• 6M: 19.01%
• YTD: 25.44%
• 1Y: 47.59%
• 3Y*: 13.38%
• 5Y*: 6.31%
• 10Y*: —

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

LGGG.L vs. RENG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
LGGG.L L&G Global Equity UCITS ETF	10.04%	12.92%	21.13%	18.08%	-8.24%	23.53%	1.07%
RENG.L L&G Clean Energy UCITS ETF	25.44%	40.21%	-12.86%	-13.13%	2.03%	-6.20%	9.04%

Correlation

The correlation between LGGG.L and RENG.L is 0.64, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.64
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.57
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 27, 2020	0.62

The correlation between LGGG.L and RENG.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

LGGG.L vs. RENG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LGGG.L	RENG.L
Technology	31.5%	20.8%
Financial Services	15.2%	-
Industrials	10.5%	51.5%
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	3.0%
Communication Services	9.2%	-
Healthcare	8.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	-
Energy	3.6%	1.4%
Basic Materials	3.2%	-
Utilities	2.3%	23.4%
Real Estate	1.7%	-

Return for Risk

LGGG.L vs. RENG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

LGGG.L

LGGG.L Risk / Return Rank: 79
LGGG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
LGGG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
LGGG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 80
LGGG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
LGGG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 81

RENG.L

RENG.L Risk / Return Rank: 72
RENG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
RENG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
RENG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 68
RENG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
RENG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

LGGG.L vs. RENG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Global Equity UCITS ETF (LGGG.L) and L&G Clean Energy UCITS ETF (RENG.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.

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.

	LGGG.L	RENG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.01	1.95	+0.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.83	2.52	+0.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.33	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.19	3.10	+0.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.36	11.16	+1.20

LGGG.L vs. RENG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LGGG.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.01, which is comparable to the RENG.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LGGG.L and RENG.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.

Drawdowns

LGGG.L vs. RENG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LGGG.L drawdown since its inception was -30.19%, smaller than the maximum RENG.L drawdown of -45.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LGGG.L and RENG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	LGGG.L	RENG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.19%	-45.48%	+15.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.67%	-15.30%	+8.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.95%	-31.61%	+11.66%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.95%	-40.27%	+20.32%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.02%	-14.72%	+13.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.13%	-20.57%	+13.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.72%	4.25%	-2.53%

Volatility

LGGG.L vs. RENG.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for L&G Global Equity UCITS ETF (LGGG.L) is 2.65%, while L&G Clean Energy UCITS ETF (RENG.L) has a volatility of 8.75%. This indicates that LGGG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RENG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LGGG.L	RENG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.65%	8.75%	-6.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.91%	19.05%	-11.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.55%	24.34%	-13.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.13%	22.21%	-3.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.30%	22.64%	-2.34%

LGGG.L vs. RENG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

LGGG.L has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than RENG.L's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

LGGG.L vs. RENG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither LGGG.L nor RENG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LGGG.L and RENG.L in my portfolio?

LGGG.L and RENG.L have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, LGGG.L or RENG.L?

On fees, LGGG.L is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, LGGG.L or RENG.L?

LGGG.L is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for RENG.L.

What is the main difference between LGGG.L and RENG.L?

LGGG.L is categorized as Global Equities, while RENG.L is Energy Equities. LGGG.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD, while RENG.L tracks S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for LGGG.L and 0.49% for RENG.L.