PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RS2G.L vs. R2SC.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RS2G.L vs. R2SC.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 SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2SC.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

RS2G.L is traded in GBp, while R2SC.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the R2SC.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with RS2G.L having a 18.06% return and R2SC.L slightly lower at 18.02%. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with RS2G.L having a 11.51% annualized return and R2SC.L not far behind at 11.46%.


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%

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

RS2G.L vs. R2SC.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%
R2SC.L
SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF
18.02%4.66%11.86%12.18%-11.55%15.87%15.73%20.67%-7.45%4.45%

Correlation

The correlation between RS2G.L and R2SC.L is 0.99 - 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

0.99

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

1.00

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

0.99

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

0.99

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

0.99

The correlation between RS2G.L and R2SC.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.99 to 1.00 - a consistent structural relationship.

RS2G.L vs. R2SC.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RS2G.L
R2SC.L

Industrials

17.7%
17.7%

Technology

17.0%
17.1%

Healthcare

16.5%
16.5%

Financial Services

15.8%
15.7%

Consumer Cyclical

8.4%
8.4%

Real Estate

6.1%
6.1%

Energy

6.1%
6.1%

Basic Materials

4.8%
4.8%

Utilities

2.9%
2.9%

Communication Services

2.4%
2.5%

Consumer Defensive

2.4%
2.4%

Industrials

RS2G.L
17.7%
R2SC.L
17.7%

Technology

RS2G.L
17.0%
R2SC.L
17.1%

Healthcare

RS2G.L
16.5%
R2SC.L
16.5%

Financial Services

RS2G.L
15.8%
R2SC.L
15.7%

Consumer Cyclical

RS2G.L
8.4%
R2SC.L
8.4%

Real Estate

RS2G.L
6.1%
R2SC.L
6.1%

Energy

RS2G.L
6.1%
R2SC.L
6.1%

Basic Materials

RS2G.L
4.8%
R2SC.L
4.8%

Utilities

RS2G.L
2.9%
R2SC.L
2.9%

Communication Services

RS2G.L
2.4%
R2SC.L
2.5%

Consumer Defensive

RS2G.L
2.4%
R2SC.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

RS2G.L vs. R2SC.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

R2SC.L
R2SC.L Risk / Return Rank: 7777
Overall Rank
R2SC.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7777
Sharpe Ratio Rank
R2SC.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7575
Sortino Ratio Rank
R2SC.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
R2SC.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
R2SC.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
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. R2SC.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 SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2SC.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.LR2SC.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.04

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.05

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.41

1.41

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.84

4.88

-0.04

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.20

14.39

-0.19

RS2G.L vs. R2SC.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RS2G.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.50, which is comparable to the R2SC.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RS2G.L and R2SC.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.LR2SC.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.50

2.46

+0.04

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.36

0.36

0.00

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.55

0.55

0.00

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.60

0.55

+0.05

Drawdowns

RS2G.L vs. R2SC.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RS2G.L drawdown since its inception was -35.05%, roughly equal to the maximum R2SC.L drawdown of -35.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RS2G.L and R2SC.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RS2G.LR2SC.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.05%

-35.03%

-0.02%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.69%

-8.63%

-0.06%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-30.04%

-30.00%

-0.04%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-30.04%

-30.00%

-0.04%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.05%

-35.03%

-0.02%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.06%

+0.06%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.55%

-8.51%

-0.04%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.97%

2.94%

+0.03%

Volatility

RS2G.L vs. R2SC.L - Volatility Comparison

Amundi Russell 2000 UCITS ETF USD (RS2G.L) and SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2SC.L) have volatilities of 5.30% and 5.17%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RS2G.LR2SC.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.30%

5.17%

+0.13%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.90%

11.78%

+0.12%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.87%

17.18%

-0.31%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.07%

20.07%

0.00%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.93%

20.78%

+0.15%

RS2G.L vs. R2SC.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

RS2G.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than R2SC.L's 0.30% expense ratio.


Dividends

RS2G.L vs. R2SC.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither RS2G.L nor R2SC.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.99, RS2G.L and R2SC.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.

On fees, R2SC.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

R2SC.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RS2G.L.

Both ETFs track Russell 2000 TR USD. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RS2G.L and 0.30% for R2SC.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RS2G.L and R2SC.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