TMFG vs. ACWV

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

TMFG (Motley Fool Global Opportunities ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both Global Equities funds. TMFG is actively managed, while ACWV is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, TMFG returned 12.52%/yr vs 10.89%/yr for ACWV. Their 0.71 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. TMFG charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

TMFG vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Motley Fool Global Opportunities ETF (TMFG) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with TMFG having a 5.76% return and ACWV slightly higher at 5.77%.

TMFG

• 1D: 1.85%
• 1M: 2.53%
• 6M: 5.07%
• YTD: 5.76%
• 1Y: 8.13%
• 3Y*: 12.52%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.47%

ACWV

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 2.00%
• 6M: 3.53%
• YTD: 5.77%
• 1Y: 8.71%
• 3Y*: 10.89%
• 5Y*: 5.71%
• 10Y*: 7.22%
• ALL TIME*: 8.75%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	$13.15M	$11.49M	$12.64M
TMFG Motley Fool Global Opportunities ETF	$305.59K	$359.54K	$429.54K

TMFG vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
TMFG Motley Fool Global Opportunities ETF	5.76%	6.75%	15.45%	28.36%	-28.17%	1.91%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	5.77%	11.04%	11.38%	8.23%	-10.36%	2.42%

Correlation

The correlation between TMFG and ACWV is 0.59, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.59
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2021	0.71

The correlation between TMFG and ACWV shifts across timeframes, from 0.59 (1 year) to 0.71 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

TMFG vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TMFG	ACWV
Industrials	23.9%	8.1%
Financial Services	17.9%	13.5%
Communication Services	13.0%	11.3%
Technology	12.4%	25.3%
Consumer Cyclical	10.7%	5.3%
Real Estate	8.1%	0.6%
Healthcare	6.6%	13.8%
Consumer Defensive	5.4%	9.7%
Basic Materials	2.1%	1.5%
Energy	-	3.5%
Utilities	-	7.5%

Return for Risk

TMFG vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

TMFG

TMFG Risk / Return Rank: 25
TMFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
TMFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
TMFG Omega Ratio Rank: 23
TMFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
TMFG Martin Ratio Rank: 28

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 41
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 42
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 37

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

TMFG vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool Global Opportunities ETF (TMFG) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	TMFG	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.60	1.09	-0.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.94	1.63	-0.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.20	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.69	1.37	-0.68
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.33	3.90	-1.57

TMFG vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMFG Sharpe Ratio is 0.60, which is lower than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 1.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMFG and ACWV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

TMFG vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMFG drawdown since its inception was -33.66%, which is greater than ACWV's maximum drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFG and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	TMFG	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.66%	-28.82%	-4.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.81%	-6.37%	-5.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.60%	-7.56%	-9.04%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.14%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-28.82%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.34%	+0.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.16%	-3.10%	-7.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.50%	2.24%	+1.26%

Volatility

TMFG vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

Motley Fool Global Opportunities ETF (TMFG) has a higher volatility of 3.92% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 2.32%. This indicates that TMFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TMFG	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.92%	2.32%	+1.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.52%	6.41%	+4.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.59%	8.05%	+5.54%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.45%	10.30%	+8.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.45%	12.30%	+6.15%

TMFG vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

TMFG has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

TMFG vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

TMFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.26%, less than ACWV's 1.90% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	1.90%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
TMFG Motley Fool Global Opportunities ETF	0.26%	0.27%	13.94%	5.42%	0.70%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TMFG and ACWV in my portfolio?

TMFG and ACWV have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TMFG or ACWV?

TMFG has higher volatility (3.92%) compared to ACWV (2.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFG dropped -33.66% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, TMFG or ACWV?

On 3-year performance, TMFG leads with 12.52% vs 10.89% for ACWV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 2.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TMFG or ACWV?

Over the 3-year period, TMFG has performed better with a 12.52% return vs 10.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TMFG or ACWV?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for TMFG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TMFG or ACWV?

ACWV has the higher dividend yield at 1.90%, compared with 0.26% for TMFG.

What is the main difference between TMFG and ACWV?

They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for TMFG and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ACWV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.09 vs 0.60), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.