R2SC.L vs. R1GB.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

R2SC.L (SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF) and R1GB.L (iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF USD Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - R2SC.L is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 TR USD, while R1GB.L is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth UCITS 30/18 Capped Net Tax 15% Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, R2SC.L returned 42.36% vs 26.52% for R1GB.L. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. R2SC.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for R1GB.L.

Performance

R2SC.L vs. R1GB.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 iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF USD Acc (R1GB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, R2SC.L achieves a 18.02% return, which is significantly higher than R1GB.L's 6.65% return.

R2SC.L

• 1D: 1.16%
• 1M: 4.52%
• YTD: 18.02%
• 6M: 15.96%
• 1Y: 42.36%
• 3Y*: 15.55%
• 5Y*: 7.28%
• 10Y*: 11.46%

R1GB.L

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 6.28%
• YTD: 6.65%
• 6M: 6.01%
• 1Y: 26.52%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

R2SC.L vs. R1GB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
R2SC.L SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF	18.02%	4.66%	12.87%
R1GB.L iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF USD Acc	6.65%	9.47%	-13.92%

Correlation

The correlation between R2SC.L and R1GB.L is 0.58, 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	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 9, 2024	0.60

The correlation between R2SC.L and R1GB.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.58 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

R2SC.L vs. R1GB.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: 77
R2SC.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
R2SC.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
R2SC.L Omega Ratio Rank: 70
R2SC.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
R2SC.L Martin Ratio Rank: 76

R1GB.L

R1GB.L Risk / Return Rank: 45
R1GB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
R1GB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
R1GB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 52
R1GB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
R1GB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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. R1GB.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 iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF USD Acc (R1GB.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.L	R1GB.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.46	1.82	+0.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.32	2.50	+0.82
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.32	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.88	1.68	+3.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.39	4.64	+9.74
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

R2SC.L vs. R1GB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current R2SC.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.46, which is higher than the R1GB.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of R2SC.L and R1GB.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

	R2SC.L	R1GB.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.46	1.82	+0.64
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.36	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.55	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.55	0.01	+0.54

Drawdowns

R2SC.L vs. R1GB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum R2SC.L drawdown since its inception was -35.03%, roughly equal to the maximum R1GB.L drawdown of -33.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for R2SC.L and R1GB.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	R2SC.L	R1GB.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.03%	-33.43%	-1.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.63%	-15.75%	+7.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.00%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-30.00%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.03%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.06%	-1.23%	+1.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.51%	-15.36%	+6.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.94%	5.70%	-2.76%

Volatility

R2SC.L vs. R1GB.L - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2SC.L) has a higher volatility of 5.17% compared to iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF USD Acc (R1GB.L) at 3.68%. This indicates that R2SC.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than R1GB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	R2SC.L	R1GB.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.17%	3.68%	+1.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.78%	10.12%	+1.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.18%	14.51%	+2.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.07%	24.56%	-4.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.78%	24.56%	-3.78%

R2SC.L vs. R1GB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

R2SC.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than R1GB.L's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

R2SC.L vs. R1GB.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither R2SC.L nor R1GB.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both R2SC.L and R1GB.L in my portfolio?

R2SC.L and R1GB.L have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, R2SC.L or R1GB.L?

On fees, R1GB.L is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, R2SC.L or R1GB.L?

R1GB.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for R2SC.L.

What is the main difference between R2SC.L and R1GB.L?

R2SC.L is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while R1GB.L is Large Cap Growth Equities. R2SC.L tracks Russell 2000 TR USD, while R1GB.L tracks Russell 1000 Growth UCITS 30/18 Capped Net Tax 15% Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for R2SC.L and 0.18% for R1GB.L.