PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RTYS.L vs. RTWP.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RTYS.L vs. RTWP.L - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

RTYS.L is traded in USD, while RTWP.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the RTWP.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RTYS.L achieves a 16.53% return, which is significantly higher than RTWP.L's 15.03% return. Over the past 10 years, RTYS.L has underperformed RTWP.L with an annualized return of 10.67%, while RTWP.L has yielded a comparatively higher 11.22% annualized return.


RTYS.L

1D
-1.07%
1M
3.46%
YTD
16.53%
6M
16.96%
1Y
39.75%
3Y*
18.26%
5Y*
5.95%
10Y*
10.67%

RTWP.L

1D
-0.81%
1M
3.17%
YTD
15.03%
6M
15.71%
1Y
33.47%
3Y*
17.34%
5Y*
6.99%
10Y*
11.22%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RTYS.L
Invesco Russell 2000 UCITS ETF
16.53%12.51%10.09%18.90%-21.01%13.97%19.89%24.61%-12.53%14.83%
RTWP.L
L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF
15.03%11.43%9.32%19.43%-18.67%19.59%19.33%25.43%-12.99%14.40%

Correlation

The correlation between RTYS.L and RTWP.L is 0.95, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


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

0.95

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

0.95

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

0.95

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

0.95

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2011

0.91

The correlation between RTYS.L and RTWP.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

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


Sectors
RTYS.L
RTWP.L

Industrials

17.7%
17.9%

Technology

17.0%
20.0%

Healthcare

16.5%
14.5%

Financial Services

15.8%
15.3%

Consumer Cyclical

8.4%
8.6%

Real Estate

6.1%
5.9%

Energy

6.1%
5.3%

Basic Materials

4.8%
4.6%

Utilities

2.9%
2.8%

Communication Services

2.4%
2.4%

Consumer Defensive

2.4%
2.7%

Industrials

RTYS.L
17.7%
RTWP.L
17.9%

Technology

RTYS.L
17.0%
RTWP.L
20.0%

Healthcare

RTYS.L
16.5%
RTWP.L
14.5%

Financial Services

RTYS.L
15.8%
RTWP.L
15.3%

Consumer Cyclical

RTYS.L
8.4%
RTWP.L
8.6%

Real Estate

RTYS.L
6.1%
RTWP.L
5.9%

Energy

RTYS.L
6.1%
RTWP.L
5.3%

Basic Materials

RTYS.L
4.8%
RTWP.L
4.6%

Utilities

RTYS.L
2.9%
RTWP.L
2.8%

Communication Services

RTYS.L
2.4%
RTWP.L
2.4%

Consumer Defensive

RTYS.L
2.4%
RTWP.L
2.7%

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

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

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

RTYS.L
RTYS.L Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
RTYS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6363
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RTYS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
RTYS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5858
Omega Ratio Rank
RTYS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
RTYS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
Martin Ratio Rank

RTWP.L
RTWP.L Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
RTWP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RTWP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
RTWP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
Omega Ratio Rank
RTWP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8585
Calmar Ratio Rank
RTWP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7474
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Russell 2000 UCITS ETF (RTYS.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.


RTYS.LRTWP.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.10

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.05

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.34

+0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.74

3.63

+0.11

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.22

11.81

+0.41

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

The current RTYS.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.13, which is comparable to the RTWP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RTYS.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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


RTYS.LRTWP.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.13

2.03

+0.10

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.27

0.34

-0.07

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.48

0.52

-0.04

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.55

0.63

-0.08

Drawdowns

RTYS.L vs. RTWP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RTYS.L drawdown since its inception was -42.15%, roughly equal to the maximum RTWP.L drawdown of -41.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RTYS.L and RTWP.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RTYS.LRTWP.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-42.15%

-41.94%

-0.21%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.57%

-9.18%

-1.39%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-28.71%

-27.37%

-1.34%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-31.97%

-30.24%

-1.73%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.15%

-41.94%

-0.21%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.24%

-0.93%

-0.31%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.15%

-7.98%

-1.17%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.24%

2.83%

+0.41%

Volatility

RTYS.L vs. RTWP.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Russell 2000 UCITS ETF (RTYS.L) has a higher volatility of 6.29% compared to L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (RTWP.L) at 5.04%. This indicates that RTYS.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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RTYS.LRTWP.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.29%

5.04%

+1.25%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.46%

11.68%

+1.78%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.68%

16.47%

+2.21%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.27%

20.86%

+1.41%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.16%

21.41%

+0.75%

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

RTYS.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than RTWP.L's 0.30% expense ratio.


Dividends

RTYS.L vs. RTWP.L - Dividend Comparison

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.95, RTYS.L and RTWP.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, RTYS.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

RTYS.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for RTWP.L.

Both ETFs track Russell 2000 TR USD. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Legal & General. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for RTYS.L and 0.30% for RTWP.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RTYS.L and RTWP.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