PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
R2SC.L vs. R2US.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

R2SC.L vs. R2US.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 Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2US.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

R2SC.L is traded in GBP, while R2US.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the R2US.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with R2SC.L having a 16.67% return and R2US.L slightly higher at 16.82%. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with R2SC.L having a 11.53% annualized return and R2US.L not far behind at 11.52%.


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%

R2US.L

1D
-0.75%
1M
3.16%
YTD
16.82%
6M
14.36%
1Y
40.62%
3Y*
15.18%
5Y*
7.02%
10Y*
11.52%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

R2SC.L vs. R2US.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%
R2US.L
SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF
16.82%4.34%12.07%12.79%-11.74%15.57%16.30%19.84%-7.31%4.77%

Correlation

The correlation between R2SC.L and R2US.L is 0.97 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.


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

0.97

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

0.97

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

0.96

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

0.95

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

0.95

The correlation between R2SC.L and R2US.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

R2SC.L vs. R2US.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
R2SC.L
R2US.L

Industrials

17.7%
17.7%

Technology

17.1%
17.1%

Healthcare

16.5%
16.5%

Financial Services

15.7%
15.7%

Consumer Cyclical

8.4%
8.4%

Energy

6.1%
6.1%

Real Estate

6.1%
6.1%

Basic Materials

4.8%
4.8%

Utilities

2.9%
2.9%

Communication Services

2.5%
2.5%

Consumer Defensive

2.4%
2.4%

Industrials

R2SC.L
17.7%
R2US.L
17.7%

Technology

R2SC.L
17.1%
R2US.L
17.1%

Healthcare

R2SC.L
16.5%
R2US.L
16.5%

Financial Services

R2SC.L
15.7%
R2US.L
15.7%

Consumer Cyclical

R2SC.L
8.4%
R2US.L
8.4%

Energy

R2SC.L
6.1%
R2US.L
6.1%

Real Estate

R2SC.L
6.1%
R2US.L
6.1%

Basic Materials

R2SC.L
4.8%
R2US.L
4.8%

Utilities

R2SC.L
2.9%
R2US.L
2.9%

Communication Services

R2SC.L
2.5%
R2US.L
2.5%

Consumer Defensive

R2SC.L
2.4%
R2US.L
2.4%

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. R2US.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

R2US.L
R2US.L Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
R2US.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6565
Sharpe Ratio Rank
R2US.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
R2US.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5959
Omega Ratio Rank
R2US.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
R2US.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
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. R2US.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 Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2US.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.LR2US.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.11

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.18

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.39

1.37

+0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.65

4.51

+0.14

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.68

13.39

+0.30

R2SC.L vs. R2US.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current R2SC.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.34, which is comparable to the R2US.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of R2SC.L and R2US.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.LR2US.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.34

2.23

+0.11

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.35

0.33

+0.02

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.55

0.53

+0.02

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.54

0.53

+0.02

Drawdowns

R2SC.L vs. R2US.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum R2SC.L drawdown since its inception was -35.03%, roughly equal to the maximum R2US.L drawdown of -35.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for R2SC.L and R2US.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


R2SC.LR2US.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.03%

-35.52%

+0.49%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.63%

-8.91%

+0.28%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-30.00%

-30.35%

+0.35%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-30.00%

-30.35%

+0.35%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.03%

-35.52%

+0.49%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.21%

-1.39%

+0.18%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.52%

-8.56%

+0.04%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.94%

3.01%

-0.07%

Volatility

R2SC.L vs. R2US.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2SC.L) is 5.26%, while SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2US.L) has a volatility of 5.99%. This indicates that R2SC.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than R2US.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


R2SC.LR2US.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.26%

5.99%

-0.73%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.75%

13.03%

-1.28%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.24%

18.11%

-0.87%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.06%

21.12%

-1.06%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.78%

21.59%

-0.81%

R2SC.L vs. R2US.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both R2SC.L and R2US.L have an expense ratio of 0.30%.


Dividends

R2SC.L vs. R2US.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither R2SC.L nor R2US.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.97, R2SC.L and R2US.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Both ETFs have the same 0.30% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

R2SC.L and R2US.L have the same expense ratio: 0.30% per year.

R2SC.L tracks Russell 2000 TR USD, while R2US.L tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and State Street Global Advisors.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for R2SC.L and R2US.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