PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
MIBX.L vs. ACWL.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

MIBX.L vs. ACWL.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MIBX.L (Lyxor FTSE MIB UCITS ETF - Dist) and ACWL.L (Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MIBX.L is a Europe Equities fund tracking the FTSE Italia AllShare TR EUR, while ACWL.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, MIBX.L returned 16.09%/yr vs 13.71%/yr for ACWL.L. At a 0.19 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MIBX.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for ACWL.L.

Performance

MIBX.L vs. ACWL.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Lyxor FTSE MIB UCITS ETF - Dist (MIBX.L) and Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MIBX.L achieves a 13.44% return, which is significantly higher than ACWL.L's 12.22% return. Over the past 10 years, MIBX.L has outperformed ACWL.L with an annualized return of 16.09%, while ACWL.L has yielded a comparatively lower 13.71% annualized return.

MIBX.L

1D
0.02%
1M
4.97%
YTD
13.44%
6M
16.78%
1Y
33.80%
3Y*
28.91%
5Y*
19.80%
10Y*
16.09%

ACWL.L

1D
-0.20%
1M
3.87%
YTD
12.22%
6M
11.66%
1Y
29.49%
3Y*
17.87%
5Y*
12.34%
10Y*
13.71%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

MIBX.L vs. ACWL.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
MIBX.L
Lyxor FTSE MIB UCITS ETF - Dist		13.44%43.78%13.17%30.61%-3.53%18.16%1.49%25.15%-12.72%21.14%
ACWL.L
Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF		12.22%13.63%21.43%13.09%-8.59%20.41%9.74%18.01%2.02%11.14%

Correlation

The correlation between MIBX.L and ACWL.L is 0.50, 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

0.50

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

0.37

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

0.29

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

0.21

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 3, 2015

0.19

Over the past year, MIBX.L and ACWL.L have become more correlated (0.50) than their long-term average of 0.19, meaning their price movements have been converging.

MIBX.L vs. ACWL.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
MIBX.L
ACWL.L

Financial Services

45.1%
16.2%

Utilities

17.2%
2.6%

Industrials

10.7%
10.9%

Consumer Cyclical

10.0%
9.3%

Energy

8.8%
4.2%

Technology

4.6%
29.3%

Healthcare

1.1%
8.1%

Communication Services

1.1%
9.0%

Basic Materials

0.6%
3.7%

Consumer Defensive

0.5%
5.0%

Real Estate

0.3%
1.8%

Financial Services

MIBX.L
45.1%
ACWL.L
16.2%

Utilities

MIBX.L
17.2%
ACWL.L
2.6%

Industrials

MIBX.L
10.7%
ACWL.L
10.9%

Consumer Cyclical

MIBX.L
10.0%
ACWL.L
9.3%

Energy

MIBX.L
8.8%
ACWL.L
4.2%

Technology

MIBX.L
4.6%
ACWL.L
29.3%

Healthcare

MIBX.L
1.1%
ACWL.L
8.1%

Communication Services

MIBX.L
1.1%
ACWL.L
9.0%

Basic Materials

MIBX.L
0.6%
ACWL.L
3.7%

Consumer Defensive

MIBX.L
0.5%
ACWL.L
5.0%

Real Estate

MIBX.L
0.3%
ACWL.L
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.

Lyxor FTSE MIB UCITS ETF - Dist

Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF

Often compared with MIBX.L:
MIBX.L vs. PRY.MIMIBX.L vs. DAXMIBX.L vs. VUSA.LMIBX.L vs. SPYMIBX.L vs. FLXD.LMIBX.L vs. BNKE.LMIBX.L vs. 500G.L
Often compared with ACWL.L:
ACWL.L vs. QQQACWL.L vs. BKIEACWL.L vs. SPPW.DEACWL.L vs. TNOW.LACWL.L vs. IVVACWL.L vs. SMHACWL.L vs. ACWU.L

Return for Risk

MIBX.L vs. ACWL.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
MIBX.L
MIBX.L Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
MIBX.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MIBX.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
MIBX.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
MIBX.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6767
Calmar Ratio Rank
MIBX.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6666
Martin Ratio Rank
ACWL.L
ACWL.L Risk / Return Rank: 8787
Overall Rank
ACWL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8989
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8989
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9090
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
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.

MIBX.L vs. ACWL.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor FTSE MIB UCITS ETF - Dist (MIBX.L) and Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.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.

MIBX.LACWL.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.23
3.01

-0.78

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.03
4.09

-1.06

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.39

1.58

-0.19

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.28

4.20

-0.92

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.88

17.39

-5.51

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

MIBX.L vs. ACWL.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MIBX.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.23, which is comparable to the ACWL.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MIBX.L and ACWL.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

MIBX.LACWL.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.23

3.01

-0.78

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.10

1.89

-0.78

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.84

2.60

-1.76

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.61

2.35

-1.74

Drawdowns

MIBX.L vs. ACWL.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MIBX.L drawdown since its inception was -35.10%, which is greater than ACWL.L's maximum drawdown of -18.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MIBX.L and ACWL.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

MIBX.LACWL.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.10%

-18.15%

-16.95%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.26%

-7.06%

-3.20%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.64%

-18.15%

+2.51%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.05%

-18.15%

-5.90%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.10%

-18.15%

-16.95%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.67%

-0.22%

-0.45%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.07%

-2.43%

-4.64%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.84%

1.71%

+1.13%

Volatility

MIBX.L vs. ACWL.L - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor FTSE MIB UCITS ETF - Dist (MIBX.L) has a higher volatility of 4.47% compared to Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.L) at 2.63%. This indicates that MIBX.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWL.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

MIBX.LACWL.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.47%

2.63%

+1.84%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.15%

6.99%

+5.16%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.08%

9.84%

+5.24%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.95%

16.52%

+1.43%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.16%

23.32%

-4.16%

MIBX.L vs. ACWL.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

MIBX.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than ACWL.L's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

MIBX.L vs. ACWL.L - Dividend Comparison

MIBX.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.25%, while ACWL.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ACWL.L
Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
MIBX.L
Lyxor FTSE MIB UCITS ETF - Dist		3.25%3.68%3.93%3.72%3.89%2.08%1.55%4.02%4.05%2.75%3.56%3.05%

Frequently Asked Questions

MIBX.L and ACWL.L have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, MIBX.L is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

MIBX.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for ACWL.L.

MIBX.L is categorized as Europe Equities, while ACWL.L is Global Equities. MIBX.L tracks FTSE Italia AllShare TR EUR, while ACWL.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for MIBX.L and 0.45% for ACWL.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for MIBX.L and ACWL.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