PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
PRIJ.L vs. ACWL.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

PRIJ.L vs. ACWL.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Amundi Prime Japan UCITS ETF DR (D) (PRIJ.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, PRIJ.L achieves a 15.18% return, which is significantly higher than ACWL.L's 12.22% return.


PRIJ.L

1D
-0.06%
1M
6.51%
YTD
15.18%
6M
12.83%
1Y
30.29%
3Y*
13.23%
5Y*
8.08%
10Y*

ACWL.L

1D
-0.20%
1M
5.47%
YTD
12.22%
6M
12.15%
1Y
29.76%
3Y*
17.87%
5Y*
12.34%
10Y*
13.71%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
PRIJ.L
Amundi Prime Japan UCITS ETF DR (D)
15.18%15.76%7.02%11.63%-8.38%0.73%10.33%11.26%
ACWL.L
Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF
12.22%13.63%21.43%13.09%-8.59%20.41%9.74%16.63%

Correlation

The correlation between PRIJ.L and ACWL.L is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.46

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

0.34

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

0.26

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 15, 2019

0.22

Over the past year, PRIJ.L and ACWL.L have become more correlated (0.46) than their long-term average of 0.22, meaning their price movements have been converging.

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


Sectors
PRIJ.L
ACWL.L

Industrials

26.2%
10.9%

Technology

17.5%
29.3%

Financial Services

16.4%
16.2%

Consumer Cyclical

12.7%
9.3%

Communication Services

8.2%
9.0%

Healthcare

6.0%
8.1%

Consumer Defensive

4.0%
5.0%

Basic Materials

3.7%
3.7%

Real Estate

3.1%
1.8%

Utilities

1.3%
2.6%

Energy

0.9%
4.2%

Industrials

PRIJ.L
26.2%
ACWL.L
10.9%

Technology

PRIJ.L
17.5%
ACWL.L
29.3%

Financial Services

PRIJ.L
16.4%
ACWL.L
16.2%

Consumer Cyclical

PRIJ.L
12.7%
ACWL.L
9.3%

Communication Services

PRIJ.L
8.2%
ACWL.L
9.0%

Healthcare

PRIJ.L
6.0%
ACWL.L
8.1%

Consumer Defensive

PRIJ.L
4.0%
ACWL.L
5.0%

Basic Materials

PRIJ.L
3.7%
ACWL.L
3.7%

Real Estate

PRIJ.L
3.1%
ACWL.L
1.8%

Utilities

PRIJ.L
1.3%
ACWL.L
2.6%

Energy

PRIJ.L
0.9%
ACWL.L
4.2%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

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

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

PRIJ.L
PRIJ.L Risk / Return Rank: 5050
Overall Rank
PRIJ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4747
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PRIJ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4747
Sortino Ratio Rank
PRIJ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5050
Omega Ratio Rank
PRIJ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5656
Calmar Ratio Rank
PRIJ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5151
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi Prime Japan UCITS ETF DR (D) (PRIJ.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.


PRIJ.LACWL.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.39

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.77

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.58

-0.27

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.74

4.20

-1.45

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.55

17.39

-8.84

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

The current PRIJ.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.62, which is lower than the ACWL.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PRIJ.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


PRIJ.LACWL.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.62

3.01

-1.39

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.51

1.89

-1.37

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

2.60

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.51

2.35

-1.84

Drawdowns

PRIJ.L vs. ACWL.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PRIJ.L drawdown since its inception was -25.61%, 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 PRIJ.L and ACWL.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


PRIJ.LACWL.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-25.61%

-18.15%

-7.46%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.99%

-7.06%

-3.93%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.07%

-18.15%

+4.08%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.56%

-18.15%

-1.41%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-18.15%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.06%

-0.22%

+0.16%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.14%

-2.43%

-3.71%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.53%

1.71%

+1.82%

Volatility

PRIJ.L vs. ACWL.L - Volatility Comparison

Amundi Prime Japan UCITS ETF DR (D) (PRIJ.L) has a higher volatility of 4.95% compared to Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.L) at 2.63%. This indicates that PRIJ.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


PRIJ.LACWL.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.95%

2.63%

+2.32%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.05%

6.99%

+8.06%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.59%

9.84%

+8.75%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.75%

16.52%

-0.77%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.77%

23.32%

-6.55%

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

PRIJ.L has a 0.05% expense ratio, which is lower than ACWL.L's 0.45% expense ratio.


Dividends

PRIJ.L vs. ACWL.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither PRIJ.L nor ACWL.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


PRIJ.L and ACWL.L have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, PRIJ.L is cheaper at 0.05% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

PRIJ.L is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for ACWL.L.

PRIJ.L is categorized as Japan Equities, while ACWL.L is Global Equities. PRIJ.L tracks TOPIX TR JPY, while ACWL.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.05% for PRIJ.L and 0.45% for ACWL.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for PRIJ.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