RENG.L vs. RTWP.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RENG.L (L&G Clean Energy UCITS ETF) and RTWP.L (L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RENG.L is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD, while RTWP.L is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RENG.L returned 9.68%/yr vs 8.12%/yr for RTWP.L. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RENG.L charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for RTWP.L.

Performance

RENG.L vs. RTWP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G Clean Energy UCITS ETF (RENG.L) and L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (RTWP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RENG.L achieves a 44.46% return, which is significantly higher than RTWP.L's 15.30% return.

RENG.L

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: 8.19%
• YTD: 44.46%
• 6M: 43.89%
• 1Y: 89.37%
• 3Y*: 16.55%
• 5Y*: 9.68%
• 10Y*: —

RTWP.L

• 1D: -0.54%
• 1M: 4.26%
• YTD: 15.30%
• 6M: 15.09%
• 1Y: 34.36%
• 3Y*: 14.42%
• 5Y*: 8.12%
• 10Y*: 12.09%

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

RENG.L vs. RTWP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
RENG.L L&G Clean Energy UCITS ETF	44.46%	40.21%	-12.86%	-13.13%	2.03%	-6.20%	19.80%
RTWP.L L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF	15.30%	3.61%	11.18%	13.44%	-8.94%	20.68%	10.51%

Correlation

The correlation between RENG.L and RTWP.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 (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 12, 2020	0.64

The correlation between RENG.L and RTWP.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.58 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

RENG.L vs. RTWP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RENG.L	RTWP.L
Industrials	49.4%	17.9%
Technology	23.8%	20.0%
Utilities	22.3%	2.8%
Consumer Cyclical	3.0%	8.6%
Energy	1.6%	5.3%
Basic Materials	-	4.6%
Communication Services	-	2.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.7%
Financial Services	-	15.3%
Healthcare	-	14.5%
Real Estate	-	5.9%

Return for Risk

RENG.L vs. RTWP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

RENG.L

RENG.L Risk / Return Rank: 95
RENG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
RENG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
RENG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 92
RENG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
RENG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 96

RTWP.L

RTWP.L Risk / Return Rank: 70
RTWP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
RTWP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
RTWP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 60
RTWP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
RTWP.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.

RENG.L vs. RTWP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Clean Energy UCITS ETF (RENG.L) and L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (RTWP.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.

	RENG.L	RTWP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.01	2.20	+1.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.67	3.02	+1.66
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.63	1.37	+0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	10.06	4.62	+5.43
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	35.59	13.92	+21.68
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RENG.L vs. RTWP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RENG.L Sharpe Ratio is 4.01, which is higher than the RTWP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RENG.L and RTWP.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

	RENG.L	RTWP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.01	2.20	+1.81
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.45	0.42	+0.02
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.59	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.48	0.69	-0.21

Drawdowns

RENG.L vs. RTWP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RENG.L drawdown since its inception was -45.48%, which is greater than RTWP.L's maximum drawdown of -35.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RENG.L and RTWP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	RENG.L	RTWP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.48%	-35.32%	-10.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.84%	-7.40%	-1.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-33.95%	-28.77%	-5.18%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-40.27%	-28.77%	-11.50%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.32%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.79%	-0.79%	-1.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.65%	-7.05%	-13.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.50%	2.46%	+0.04%

Volatility

RENG.L vs. RTWP.L - Volatility Comparison

L&G Clean Energy UCITS ETF (RENG.L) has a higher volatility of 8.17% compared to L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (RTWP.L) at 4.58%. This indicates that RENG.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RTWP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RENG.L	RTWP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.17%	4.58%	+3.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.75%	10.89%	+4.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.23%	15.63%	+6.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.71%	19.24%	+2.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.30%	20.40%	+1.90%

RENG.L vs. RTWP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

RENG.L has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than RTWP.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

RENG.L vs. RTWP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither RENG.L nor RTWP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RENG.L and RTWP.L in my portfolio?

RENG.L and RTWP.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, RENG.L or RTWP.L?

On fees, RTWP.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, RENG.L or RTWP.L?

RTWP.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for RENG.L.

What is the main difference between RENG.L and RTWP.L?

RENG.L is categorized as Energy Equities, while RTWP.L is Small Cap Blend Equities. RENG.L tracks S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD, while RTWP.L tracks Russell 2000 TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for RENG.L and 0.30% for RTWP.L.