PCGG vs. ACWV

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

PCGG (Polen Capital Global Growth ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds. PCGG is actively managed, while ACWV is passively managed. Over the past year, PCGG returned -6.98% vs 6.41% for ACWV. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PCGG charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

PCGG vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) 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, PCGG achieves a -7.56% return, which is significantly lower than ACWV's 3.83% return.

PCGG

• 1D: -0.54%
• 1M: 2.17%
• 6M: -8.93%
• YTD: -7.56%
• 1Y: -6.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ACWV

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 0.92%
• 6M: 2.66%
• YTD: 3.83%
• 1Y: 6.41%
• 3Y*: 9.88%
• 5Y*: 5.49%
• 10Y*: 7.02%

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

PCGG vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth ETF	-7.56%	1.62%	12.40%	4.17%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	3.83%	11.04%	11.38%	3.88%

Correlation

The correlation between PCGG and ACWV is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 30, 2023	0.53

The correlation between PCGG and ACWV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.44 to 0.53 - a consistent structural relationship.

PCGG vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PCGG	ACWV
Technology	32.7%	25.8%
Financial Services	14.4%	13.2%
Communication Services	10.7%	11.9%
Consumer Cyclical	7.8%	5.1%
Industrials	7.3%	8.1%
Healthcare	7.1%	13.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	9.8%
Basic Materials	2.2%	1.5%
Utilities	2.0%	7.3%
Real Estate	1.2%	0.6%
Energy	-	3.7%

Return for Risk

PCGG vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

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

PCGG

PCGG Risk / Return Rank: 6
PCGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
PCGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
PCGG Omega Ratio Rank: 5
PCGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
PCGG Martin Ratio Rank: 6

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 26
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 25
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

PCGG vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) 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.

	PCGG	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.44	0.80	-1.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.50	1.18	-1.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.94	1.15	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.31	1.01	-1.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.69	2.89	-3.59

PCGG vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PCGG Sharpe Ratio is -0.44, which is lower than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PCGG 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

PCGG vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PCGG drawdown since its inception was -22.66%, smaller than the maximum ACWV drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCGG and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	PCGG	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.66%	-28.82%	+6.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.66%	-6.37%	-16.29%
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	-12.18%	-1.52%	-10.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.24%	-3.11%	-2.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.08%	2.22%	+7.86%

Volatility

PCGG vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) has a higher volatility of 4.98% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 3.17%. This indicates that PCGG'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

	PCGG	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.98%	3.17%	+1.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.17%	6.23%	+6.94%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.91%	8.07%	+7.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.73%	10.27%	+6.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.73%	12.29%	+4.44%

PCGG vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

PCGG has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

PCGG vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

PCGG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ACWV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.93%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	1.93%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth 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%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PCGG and ACWV in my portfolio?

PCGG and ACWV have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PCGG or ACWV?

PCGG has higher volatility (4.98%) compared to ACWV (3.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PCGG dropped -22.66% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, PCGG or ACWV?

On 1-year performance, ACWV leads with 6.41% vs -6.98% for PCGG. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 3.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PCGG or ACWV?

Over the 1-year period, ACWV has performed better with a 6.41% return vs -6.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PCGG or ACWV?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for PCGG.

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

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.93%, compared with 0.00% for PCGG.

What is the main difference between PCGG and ACWV?

They also come from different issuers: Polen and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for PCGG and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ACWV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.80 vs -0.44), 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.