MVPA vs. ACWV

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

MVPA (Miller Value Partners Appreciation ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds. MVPA is actively managed, while ACWV is passively managed. Over the past year, MVPA returned 0.83% vs 5.53% for ACWV. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MVPA charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

MVPA vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Miller Value Partners Appreciation ETF (MVPA) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MVPA achieves a 4.59% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 3.42% return.

MVPA

• 1D: 0.31%
• 1M: 5.28%
• 6M: -0.39%
• YTD: 4.59%
• 1Y: 0.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ACWV

• 1D: -0.39%
• 1M: 0.53%
• 6M: 2.85%
• YTD: 3.42%
• 1Y: 5.53%
• 3Y*: 9.73%
• 5Y*: 5.39%
• 10Y*: 6.98%

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

MVPA vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MVPA Miller Value Partners Appreciation ETF	4.59%	-2.92%	39.11%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	3.42%	11.04%	9.52%

Correlation

The correlation between MVPA and ACWV is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 31, 2024	0.46

MVPA vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MVPA	ACWV
Consumer Cyclical	28.2%	5.1%
Financial Services	20.2%	13.2%
Communication Services	11.7%	11.9%
Technology	10.1%	25.8%
Energy	9.3%	3.7%
Industrials	8.1%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	3.8%	9.8%
Real Estate	3.4%	0.6%
Healthcare	2.8%	13.0%
Basic Materials	2.4%	1.5%
Utilities	-	7.3%

Return for Risk

MVPA vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

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

MVPA

MVPA Risk / Return Rank: 10
MVPA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
MVPA Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
MVPA Omega Ratio Rank: 10
MVPA Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
MVPA Martin Ratio Rank: 10

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 23
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 21
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 24

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.

MVPA vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Miller Value Partners Appreciation ETF (MVPA) 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.

	MVPA	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.04	0.69	-0.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.19	1.03	-0.84
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.02	1.13	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.06	0.87	-0.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.11	2.49	-2.38

MVPA vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MVPA Sharpe Ratio is 0.04, which is lower than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MVPA 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.

Drawdowns

MVPA vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MVPA drawdown since its inception was -25.91%, smaller than the maximum ACWV drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MVPA and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	MVPA	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.91%	-28.82%	+2.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.15%	-6.37%	-8.78%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-7.56%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.14%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-28.82%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.87%	-1.91%	-3.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.39%	-3.11%	-4.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.34%	2.22%	+5.12%

Volatility

MVPA vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

Miller Value Partners Appreciation ETF (MVPA) has a higher volatility of 4.81% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 3.15%. This indicates that MVPA'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.

Volatility by Period

	MVPA	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.81%	3.15%	+1.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.96%	6.25%	+7.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.82%	8.06%	+10.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.83%	10.27%	+12.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.83%	12.29%	+10.54%

MVPA vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

MVPA has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

MVPA vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

MVPA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.53%, less than ACWV's 1.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	1.94%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
MVPA Miller Value Partners Appreciation ETF	0.53%	0.56%	0.94%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MVPA and ACWV in my portfolio?

MVPA and ACWV have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MVPA or ACWV?

MVPA has higher volatility (4.81%) compared to ACWV (3.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MVPA dropped -25.91% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, MVPA or ACWV?

On 1-year performance, ACWV leads with 5.53% vs 0.83% for MVPA. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 3.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MVPA or ACWV?

Over the 1-year period, ACWV has performed better with a 5.53% return vs 0.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MVPA or ACWV?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for MVPA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MVPA or ACWV?

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.94%, compared with 0.53% for MVPA.

What is the main difference between MVPA and ACWV?

They also come from different issuers: Miller and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for MVPA and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ACWV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.69 vs 0.04), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.