SUKC.L vs. SWDA.L
Compare and contrast key facts about SPDR Bloomberg 0-5 Year Sterling Corporate Bond UCITS ETF (SUKC.L) and iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (SWDA.L).
SUKC.L and SWDA.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. SUKC.L is a passively managed fund by State Street that tracks the performance of the Markit iBoxx GBP NonGilts 1-5 TR. It was launched on Feb 17, 2014. SWDA.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI ACWI NR USD. It was launched on Sep 25, 2009. Both SUKC.L and SWDA.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: SUKC.L or SWDA.L.
Correlation
The correlation between SUKC.L and SWDA.L is 0.35, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Performance
SUKC.L vs. SWDA.L - Performance Comparison
Key characteristics
SUKC.L:
1.84
SWDA.L:
1.87
SUKC.L:
2.77
SWDA.L:
2.66
SUKC.L:
1.36
SWDA.L:
1.35
SUKC.L:
2.34
SWDA.L:
3.24
SUKC.L:
12.48
SWDA.L:
13.93
SUKC.L:
0.53%
SWDA.L:
1.41%
SUKC.L:
3.57%
SWDA.L:
10.52%
SUKC.L:
-13.70%
SWDA.L:
-25.58%
SUKC.L:
-0.38%
SWDA.L:
-0.86%
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SUKC.L achieves a 1.23% return, which is significantly lower than SWDA.L's 3.89% return. Over the past 10 years, SUKC.L has underperformed SWDA.L with an annualized return of 1.67%, while SWDA.L has yielded a comparatively higher 12.46% annualized return.
SUKC.L
1.23%
1.19%
2.40%
6.46%
1.28%
1.67%
SWDA.L
3.89%
1.29%
12.11%
20.24%
12.40%
12.46%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
SUKC.L vs. SWDA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both SUKC.L and SWDA.L have an expense ratio of 0.20%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
SUKC.L vs. SWDA.L — Risk-Adjusted Performance Rank
SUKC.L
SWDA.L
SUKC.L vs. SWDA.L - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg 0-5 Year Sterling Corporate Bond UCITS ETF (SUKC.L) and iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (SWDA.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.
Dividends
SUKC.L vs. SWDA.L - Dividend Comparison
SUKC.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.64%, while SWDA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| TTM | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SUKC.L SPDR Bloomberg 0-5 Year Sterling Corporate Bond UCITS ETF | 4.64% | 4.41% | 3.05% | 176.27% | 85.47% | 1.97% | 1.93% | 1.88% | 2.44% | 2.40% | 2.55% | 1.08% |
SWDA.L iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
SUKC.L vs. SWDA.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SUKC.L drawdown since its inception was -13.70%, smaller than the maximum SWDA.L drawdown of -25.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SUKC.L and SWDA.L. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
SUKC.L vs. SWDA.L - Volatility Comparison
SPDR Bloomberg 0-5 Year Sterling Corporate Bond UCITS ETF (SUKC.L) and iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (SWDA.L) have volatilities of 3.01% and 3.03%, 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.