TIPG.L vs. ACWL.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

TIPG.L (Lyxor Core US TIPS (DR) UCITS ETF - Dist) and ACWL.L (Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TIPG.L is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg Gbl Infl Linked US TIPS TR USD, while ACWL.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, TIPG.L returned 1.22%/yr vs 12.34%/yr for ACWL.L. At a 0.05 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. TIPG.L charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for ACWL.L.

Performance

TIPG.L vs. ACWL.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Lyxor Core US TIPS (DR) UCITS ETF - Dist (TIPG.L) and Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TIPG.L achieves a 1.46% return, which is significantly lower than ACWL.L's 12.22% return.

TIPG.L

• 1D: 0.09%
• 1M: 1.05%
• YTD: 1.46%
• 6M: -0.45%
• 1Y: 4.71%
• 3Y*: 0.24%
• 5Y*: 1.22%
• 10Y*: —

ACWL.L

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: 5.47%
• YTD: 12.22%
• 6M: 12.15%
• 1Y: 29.76%
• 3Y*: 17.87%
• 5Y*: 12.34%
• 10Y*: 13.71%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
TIPG.L Lyxor Core US TIPS (DR) UCITS ETF - Dist	1.46%	-1.51%	2.83%	-2.90%	-2.52%	6.54%	6.58%	4.69%	2.93%	-6.27%
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 TIPG.L and ACWL.L is 0.13, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.13
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.09
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 11, 2016	0.05

Return for Risk

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

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

TIPG.L

TIPG.L Risk / Return Rank: 20
TIPG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
TIPG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
TIPG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 20
TIPG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
TIPG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 17

ACWL.L

ACWL.L Risk / Return Rank: 87
ACWL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
ACWL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
ACWL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 90
ACWL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
ACWL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor Core US TIPS (DR) UCITS ETF - Dist (TIPG.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.

	TIPG.L	ACWL.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.74	3.01	-2.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.08	4.09	-3.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.58	-0.45
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.75	4.20	-3.44
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.67	17.39	-15.72
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current TIPG.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.74, which is lower than the ACWL.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TIPG.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	TIPG.L	ACWL.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.74	3.01	-2.27
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.14	1.89	-1.75
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	2.60	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.11	2.35	-2.24

Drawdowns

TIPG.L vs. ACWL.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TIPG.L drawdown since its inception was -15.73%, smaller than the maximum ACWL.L drawdown of -18.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TIPG.L and ACWL.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	TIPG.L	ACWL.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.73%	-18.15%	+2.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.27%	-7.06%	+0.79%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.00%	-18.15%	+10.15%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-15.73%	-18.15%	+2.42%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-18.15%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.38%	-0.22%	-10.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.90%	-2.43%	-5.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.82%	1.71%	+1.11%

Volatility

TIPG.L vs. ACWL.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Lyxor Core US TIPS (DR) UCITS ETF - Dist (TIPG.L) is 1.82%, while Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.L) has a volatility of 2.63%. This indicates that TIPG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ACWL.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TIPG.L	ACWL.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.82%	2.63%	-0.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.67%	6.99%	-2.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.38%	9.84%	-3.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.73%	16.52%	-7.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.30%	23.32%	-13.02%

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

TIPG.L has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than ACWL.L's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

TIPG.L vs. ACWL.L - Dividend Comparison

TIPG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.01%, while ACWL.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ACWL.L Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TIPG.L Lyxor Core US TIPS (DR) UCITS ETF - Dist	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TIPG.L and ACWL.L in my portfolio?

TIPG.L and ACWL.L have a correlation of 0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, TIPG.L or ACWL.L?

On fees, TIPG.L is cheaper at 0.09% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, TIPG.L or ACWL.L?

TIPG.L is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for ACWL.L.

What is the main difference between TIPG.L and ACWL.L?

TIPG.L is categorized as Inflation-Protected Bonds, while ACWL.L is Global Equities. TIPG.L tracks Bloomberg Gbl Infl Linked US TIPS TR USD, while ACWL.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for TIPG.L and 0.45% for ACWL.L.