PQVM.L vs. FWRA.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

PQVM.L (Invesco S&P 500 QVM UCITS ETF) and FWRA.L (Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation) are both exchange-traded funds - PQVM.L is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Quality, Value, and Momentum Multi-Factor Index, while FWRA.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the FTSE All-World Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, PQVM.L returned 22.76% vs 28.82% for FWRA.L. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PQVM.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for FWRA.L.

Performance

PQVM.L vs. FWRA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 QVM UCITS ETF (PQVM.L) and Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PQVM.L achieves a 16.65% return, which is significantly higher than FWRA.L's 11.59% return.

PQVM.L

• 1D: 0.39%
• 1M: 4.36%
• YTD: 16.65%
• 6M: 17.79%
• 1Y: 22.76%
• 3Y*: 24.37%
• 5Y*: 15.45%
• 10Y*: —

FWRA.L

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: 4.28%
• YTD: 11.59%
• 6M: 13.01%
• 1Y: 28.82%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PQVM.L vs. FWRA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
PQVM.L Invesco S&P 500 QVM UCITS ETF	16.65%	13.66%	30.17%	9.17%
FWRA.L Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation	11.59%	22.37%	18.07%	9.23%

Correlation

The correlation between PQVM.L and FWRA.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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2023	0.74

The correlation between PQVM.L and FWRA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

PQVM.L vs. FWRA.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PQVM.L	FWRA.L
Technology	25.6%	29.1%
Financial Services	22.0%	16.4%
Industrials	13.7%	11.0%
Healthcare	9.4%	7.6%
Communication Services	9.1%	8.9%
Energy	5.6%	4.3%
Consumer Defensive	5.5%	5.0%
Consumer Cyclical	4.2%	9.4%
Utilities	2.8%	2.6%
Basic Materials	2.2%	3.9%
Real Estate	-	1.9%

Return for Risk

PQVM.L vs. FWRA.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

PQVM.L

PQVM.L Risk / Return Rank: 73
PQVM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
PQVM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
PQVM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 62
PQVM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
PQVM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 82

FWRA.L

FWRA.L Risk / Return Rank: 73
FWRA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
FWRA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
FWRA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 73
FWRA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
FWRA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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.

PQVM.L vs. FWRA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 QVM UCITS ETF (PQVM.L) and Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.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.

	PQVM.L	FWRA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.06	2.32	-0.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.15	3.44	-0.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.43	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.70	3.27	+1.43
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.26	13.70	+2.56
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PQVM.L vs. FWRA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PQVM.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.06, which is comparable to the FWRA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PQVM.L and FWRA.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	PQVM.L	FWRA.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.06	2.32	-0.26
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.87	1.56	-0.69

Drawdowns

PQVM.L vs. FWRA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PQVM.L drawdown since its inception was -34.42%, which is greater than FWRA.L's maximum drawdown of -16.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PQVM.L and FWRA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	PQVM.L	FWRA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.42%	-16.60%	-17.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.83%	-8.74%	+3.91%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.49%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.35%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.77%	+0.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.90%	-1.93%	-1.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.40%	2.09%	-0.69%

Volatility

PQVM.L vs. FWRA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 QVM UCITS ETF (PQVM.L) is 3.15%, while Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.L) has a volatility of 3.80%. This indicates that PQVM.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FWRA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PQVM.L	FWRA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.15%	3.80%	-0.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.76%	9.86%	-1.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.01%	12.32%	-1.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.13%	13.52%	+2.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.13%	13.52%	+3.61%

PQVM.L vs. FWRA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

PQVM.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than FWRA.L's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

PQVM.L vs. FWRA.L - Dividend Comparison

PQVM.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.77%, while FWRA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FWRA.L Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PQVM.L Invesco S&P 500 QVM UCITS ETF	0.77%	0.82%	0.84%	1.58%	1.79%	0.89%	1.48%	1.38%	1.68%	0.71%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PQVM.L and FWRA.L in my portfolio?

PQVM.L and FWRA.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, PQVM.L or FWRA.L?

On fees, FWRA.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, PQVM.L or FWRA.L?

FWRA.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for PQVM.L.

What is the main difference between PQVM.L and FWRA.L?

PQVM.L is categorized as S&P 500, while FWRA.L is Global Equities. PQVM.L tracks S&P 500 Quality, Value, and Momentum Multi-Factor Index, while FWRA.L tracks FTSE All-World Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for PQVM.L and 0.15% for FWRA.L.