USML.L vs. FWRG.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

USML.L (Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 UCITS ETF A) and FWRG.L (Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - USML.L is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 TR USD, while FWRG.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the FTSE All-World Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, USML.L returned 33.26% vs 30.08% for FWRG.L. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. USML.L charges 0.14%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for FWRG.L.

Performance

USML.L vs. FWRG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 UCITS ETF A (USML.L) and Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc (FWRG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, USML.L achieves a 15.40% return, which is significantly higher than FWRG.L's 11.92% return.

USML.L

• 1D: 1.05%
• 1M: 1.79%
• YTD: 15.40%
• 6M: 15.62%
• 1Y: 33.26%
• 3Y*: 15.56%
• 5Y*: 5.94%
• 10Y*: —

FWRG.L

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 5.35%
• YTD: 11.92%
• 6M: 12.40%
• 1Y: 30.08%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

USML.L vs. FWRG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
USML.L Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 UCITS ETF A	15.40%	6.56%	7.78%	11.21%
FWRG.L Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc	11.92%	13.84%	20.11%	8.08%

Correlation

The correlation between USML.L and FWRG.L is 0.60, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2023	0.60

The correlation between USML.L and FWRG.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

USML.L vs. FWRG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	USML.L	FWRG.L
Financial Services	16.9%	16.4%
Industrials	15.5%	11.0%
Technology	15.5%	29.1%
Consumer Cyclical	13.4%	9.4%
Healthcare	11.0%	7.6%
Real Estate	7.7%	1.9%
Energy	5.9%	4.3%
Basic Materials	5.1%	3.9%
Communication Services	3.6%	8.9%
Consumer Defensive	3.5%	5.0%
Utilities	2.0%	2.6%

Return for Risk

USML.L vs. FWRG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

USML.L

USML.L Risk / Return Rank: 64
USML.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
USML.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
USML.L Omega Ratio Rank: 56
USML.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
USML.L Martin Ratio Rank: 66

FWRG.L

FWRG.L Risk / Return Rank: 86
FWRG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
FWRG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
FWRG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 89
FWRG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
FWRG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

USML.L vs. FWRG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 UCITS ETF A (USML.L) and Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc (FWRG.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.

	USML.L	FWRG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.95	2.91	-0.95
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.93	4.02	-1.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.56	-0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.82	4.20	-0.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.96	16.96	-4.99
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

USML.L vs. FWRG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current USML.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.95, which is lower than the FWRG.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of USML.L and FWRG.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

	USML.L	FWRG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.95	2.91	-0.95
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.28	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.40	1.51	-1.10

Drawdowns

USML.L vs. FWRG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum USML.L drawdown since its inception was -42.69%, which is greater than FWRG.L's maximum drawdown of -18.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for USML.L and FWRG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	USML.L	FWRG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.69%	-18.88%	-23.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.67%	-7.14%	-1.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.02%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.02%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.43%	+0.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.90%	-2.28%	-7.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.77%	1.77%	+1.00%

Volatility

USML.L vs. FWRG.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 UCITS ETF A (USML.L) has a higher volatility of 4.88% compared to Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc (FWRG.L) at 2.96%. This indicates that USML.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FWRG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	USML.L	FWRG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.88%	2.96%	+1.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.53%	7.69%	+3.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.94%	10.30%	+6.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.17%	12.40%	+8.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.82%	12.40%	+11.42%

USML.L vs. FWRG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

USML.L has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than FWRG.L's 0.15% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

USML.L vs. FWRG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither USML.L nor FWRG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both USML.L and FWRG.L in my portfolio?

USML.L and FWRG.L have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, USML.L or FWRG.L?

On fees, USML.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, USML.L or FWRG.L?

USML.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for FWRG.L.

What is the main difference between USML.L and FWRG.L?

USML.L is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while FWRG.L is Global Equities. USML.L tracks Russell 2000 TR USD, while FWRG.L tracks FTSE All-World Index. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for USML.L and 0.15% for FWRG.L.