PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
R2SC.L vs. ACWD.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

R2SC.L vs. ACWD.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2SC.L) and SPDR MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWD.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

R2SC.L is traded in GBP, while ACWD.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the ACWD.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, R2SC.L achieves a 16.67% return, which is significantly higher than ACWD.L's 11.99% return. Over the past 10 years, R2SC.L has underperformed ACWD.L with an annualized return of 11.53%, while ACWD.L has yielded a comparatively higher 13.66% annualized return.


R2SC.L

1D
-0.62%
1M
4.94%
YTD
16.67%
6M
16.08%
1Y
40.29%
3Y*
15.25%
5Y*
7.03%
10Y*
11.53%

ACWD.L

1D
-0.39%
1M
5.51%
YTD
11.99%
6M
12.64%
1Y
30.62%
3Y*
18.32%
5Y*
12.52%
10Y*
13.66%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

R2SC.L vs. ACWD.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
R2SC.L
SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF
16.67%4.66%11.86%12.18%-11.55%15.87%15.73%20.67%-7.45%4.45%
ACWD.L
SPDR MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF
11.99%14.08%19.81%16.16%-8.66%19.89%12.50%21.02%-4.51%13.36%

Correlation

The correlation between R2SC.L and ACWD.L is 0.73, 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

0.73

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

0.72

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

0.74

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

0.74

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 3, 2014

0.75

The correlation between R2SC.L and ACWD.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

R2SC.L vs. ACWD.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
R2SC.L
ACWD.L

Industrials

17.7%
10.9%

Technology

17.1%
29.2%

Healthcare

16.5%
8.0%

Financial Services

15.7%
16.5%

Consumer Cyclical

8.4%
9.3%

Energy

6.1%
4.3%

Real Estate

6.1%
1.7%

Basic Materials

4.8%
3.6%

Utilities

2.9%
2.7%

Communication Services

2.5%
9.0%

Consumer Defensive

2.4%
4.9%

Industrials

R2SC.L
17.7%
ACWD.L
10.9%

Technology

R2SC.L
17.1%
ACWD.L
29.2%

Healthcare

R2SC.L
16.5%
ACWD.L
8.0%

Financial Services

R2SC.L
15.7%
ACWD.L
16.5%

Consumer Cyclical

R2SC.L
8.4%
ACWD.L
9.3%

Energy

R2SC.L
6.1%
ACWD.L
4.3%

Real Estate

R2SC.L
6.1%
ACWD.L
1.7%

Basic Materials

R2SC.L
4.8%
ACWD.L
3.6%

Utilities

R2SC.L
2.9%
ACWD.L
2.7%

Communication Services

R2SC.L
2.5%
ACWD.L
9.0%

Consumer Defensive

R2SC.L
2.4%
ACWD.L
4.9%

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

R2SC.L vs. ACWD.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

R2SC.L
R2SC.L Risk / Return Rank: 7272
Overall Rank
R2SC.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7171
Sharpe Ratio Rank
R2SC.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
R2SC.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6464
Omega Ratio Rank
R2SC.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8585
Calmar Ratio Rank
R2SC.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
Martin Ratio Rank

ACWD.L
ACWD.L Risk / Return Rank: 7272
Overall Rank
ACWD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7171
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6767
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
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.

R2SC.L vs. ACWD.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2SC.L) and SPDR MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWD.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.


R2SC.LACWD.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.19

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.31

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.39

1.48

-0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.65

4.44

+0.21

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.68

16.90

-3.22

R2SC.L vs. ACWD.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current R2SC.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.34, which is comparable to the ACWD.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of R2SC.L and ACWD.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


R2SC.LACWD.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.34

2.53

-0.19

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.35

0.88

-0.53

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.55

0.89

-0.33

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.54

0.84

-0.29

Drawdowns

R2SC.L vs. ACWD.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum R2SC.L drawdown since its inception was -35.03%, which is greater than ACWD.L's maximum drawdown of -25.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for R2SC.L and ACWD.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


R2SC.LACWD.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.03%

-25.57%

-9.46%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.63%

-6.87%

-1.76%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-30.00%

-18.26%

-11.74%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-30.00%

-18.26%

-11.74%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.03%

-25.57%

-9.46%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.21%

-0.39%

-0.82%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.52%

-3.56%

-4.96%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.94%

1.81%

+1.13%

Volatility

R2SC.L vs. ACWD.L - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2SC.L) has a higher volatility of 5.26% compared to SPDR MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWD.L) at 3.75%. This indicates that R2SC.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWD.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


R2SC.LACWD.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.26%

3.75%

+1.51%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.75%

9.37%

+2.38%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.24%

12.06%

+5.18%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.06%

14.27%

+5.79%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.78%

15.40%

+5.38%

R2SC.L vs. ACWD.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

R2SC.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWD.L's 0.12% expense ratio.


Dividends

R2SC.L vs. ACWD.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither R2SC.L nor ACWD.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


R2SC.L and ACWD.L have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ACWD.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ACWD.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for R2SC.L.

R2SC.L is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while ACWD.L is Global Equities. R2SC.L tracks Russell 2000 TR USD, while ACWD.L tracks MSCI ACWI Index. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for R2SC.L and 0.12% for ACWD.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for R2SC.L and ACWD.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