PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RS2G.L vs. ACWL.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RS2G.L vs. ACWL.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Amundi Russell 2000 UCITS ETF USD (RS2G.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, RS2G.L achieves a 18.06% return, which is significantly higher than ACWL.L's 12.22% return. Over the past 10 years, RS2G.L has underperformed ACWL.L with an annualized return of 11.51%, while ACWL.L has yielded a comparatively higher 13.71% annualized return.


RS2G.L

1D
1.24%
1M
3.33%
YTD
18.06%
6M
15.65%
1Y
42.03%
3Y*
15.57%
5Y*
7.25%
10Y*
11.51%

ACWL.L

1D
-0.20%
1M
3.87%
YTD
12.22%
6M
11.66%
1Y
29.49%
3Y*
17.87%
5Y*
12.34%
10Y*
13.71%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RS2G.L vs. ACWL.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RS2G.L
Amundi Russell 2000 UCITS ETF USD
18.06%4.55%11.87%12.47%-11.37%15.31%15.83%21.59%-7.91%4.60%
ACWL.L
Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF
12.22%13.63%21.43%13.09%-8.59%20.41%9.74%18.01%2.02%11.14%

Correlation

The correlation between RS2G.L and ACWL.L is 0.67, 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

0.67

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

0.48

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

0.36

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

0.25

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2016

0.25

Over the past year, RS2G.L and ACWL.L have become more correlated (0.67) than their long-term average of 0.25, meaning their price movements have been converging.

RS2G.L vs. ACWL.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RS2G.L
ACWL.L

Industrials

17.7%
10.9%

Technology

17.0%
29.3%

Healthcare

16.5%
8.1%

Financial Services

15.8%
16.2%

Consumer Cyclical

8.4%
9.3%

Real Estate

6.1%
1.8%

Energy

6.1%
4.2%

Basic Materials

4.8%
3.7%

Utilities

2.9%
2.6%

Communication Services

2.4%
9.0%

Consumer Defensive

2.4%
5.0%

Industrials

RS2G.L
17.7%
ACWL.L
10.9%

Technology

RS2G.L
17.0%
ACWL.L
29.3%

Healthcare

RS2G.L
16.5%
ACWL.L
8.1%

Financial Services

RS2G.L
15.8%
ACWL.L
16.2%

Consumer Cyclical

RS2G.L
8.4%
ACWL.L
9.3%

Real Estate

RS2G.L
6.1%
ACWL.L
1.8%

Energy

RS2G.L
6.1%
ACWL.L
4.2%

Basic Materials

RS2G.L
4.8%
ACWL.L
3.7%

Utilities

RS2G.L
2.9%
ACWL.L
2.6%

Communication Services

RS2G.L
2.4%
ACWL.L
9.0%

Consumer Defensive

RS2G.L
2.4%
ACWL.L
5.0%

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

RS2G.L vs. ACWL.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

RS2G.L
RS2G.L Risk / Return Rank: 7777
Overall Rank
RS2G.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7878
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RS2G.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
RS2G.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
RS2G.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
RS2G.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
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.

RS2G.L vs. ACWL.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi Russell 2000 UCITS ETF USD (RS2G.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.


RS2G.LACWL.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.51

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.72

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.41

1.58

-0.17

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.84

4.20

+0.65

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.20

17.39

-3.20

RS2G.L vs. ACWL.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RS2G.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.50, which is comparable to the ACWL.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RS2G.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


RS2G.LACWL.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.50

3.01

-0.51

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.36

1.89

-1.52

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.55

2.60

-2.04

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.60

2.35

-1.75

Drawdowns

RS2G.L vs. ACWL.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RS2G.L drawdown since its inception was -35.05%, 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 RS2G.L and ACWL.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RS2G.LACWL.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.05%

-18.15%

-16.90%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.69%

-7.06%

-1.63%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-30.04%

-18.15%

-11.89%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-30.04%

-18.15%

-11.89%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.05%

-18.15%

-16.90%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.22%

+0.22%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.55%

-2.43%

-6.12%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.97%

1.71%

+1.26%

Volatility

RS2G.L vs. ACWL.L - Volatility Comparison

Amundi Russell 2000 UCITS ETF USD (RS2G.L) has a higher volatility of 5.30% compared to Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.L) at 2.63%. This indicates that RS2G.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


RS2G.LACWL.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.30%

2.63%

+2.67%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.90%

6.99%

+4.91%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.87%

9.84%

+7.03%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.07%

16.52%

+3.55%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.93%

23.32%

-2.39%

RS2G.L vs. ACWL.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

RS2G.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than ACWL.L's 0.45% expense ratio.


Dividends

RS2G.L vs. ACWL.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither RS2G.L nor ACWL.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


RS2G.L and ACWL.L have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, RS2G.L is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

RS2G.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for ACWL.L.

RS2G.L is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while ACWL.L is Global Equities. RS2G.L tracks Russell 2000 TR USD, while ACWL.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RS2G.L and 0.45% for ACWL.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RS2G.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