USML.L vs. R2US.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

USML.L (Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 UCITS ETF A) and R2US.L (SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds - USML.L tracks the Russell 2000 TR USD while R2US.L tracks the Russell 2000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, USML.L returned 5.94%/yr vs 6.13%/yr for R2US.L. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. USML.L charges 0.14%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for R2US.L.

Performance

USML.L vs. R2US.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 SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2US.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 lower than R2US.L's 17.73% 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*: —

R2US.L

• 1D: 1.15%
• 1M: 3.44%
• YTD: 17.73%
• 6M: 16.52%
• 1Y: 40.92%
• 3Y*: 18.56%
• 5Y*: 6.13%
• 10Y*: 10.64%

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

USML.L vs. R2US.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
USML.L Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 UCITS ETF A	15.40%	6.56%	7.78%	17.52%	-15.95%	26.49%	11.11%	5.73%
R2US.L SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF	17.73%	12.34%	10.15%	18.73%	-21.12%	14.48%	19.82%	7.02%

Correlation

The correlation between USML.L and R2US.L is 0.92, 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	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.95
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 19, 2019	0.96

The correlation between USML.L and R2US.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

USML.L vs. R2US.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	USML.L	R2US.L
Financial Services	16.9%	15.7%
Industrials	15.5%	17.7%
Technology	15.5%	17.1%
Consumer Cyclical	13.4%	8.4%
Healthcare	11.0%	16.5%
Real Estate	7.7%	6.1%
Energy	5.9%	6.1%
Basic Materials	5.1%	4.8%
Communication Services	3.6%	2.5%
Consumer Defensive	3.5%	2.4%
Utilities	2.0%	2.9%

Return for Risk

USML.L vs. R2US.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

R2US.L

R2US.L Risk / Return Rank: 69
R2US.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
R2US.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
R2US.L Omega Ratio Rank: 61
R2US.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
R2US.L Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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. R2US.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 SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2US.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	R2US.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.95	2.21	-0.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.93	3.15	-0.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.37	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.82	3.96	-0.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.96	12.61	-0.65
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. R2US.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current USML.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.95, which is comparable to the R2US.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of USML.L and R2US.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	R2US.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.95	2.21	-0.25
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.28	0.28	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.48	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.40	0.42	-0.02

Drawdowns

USML.L vs. R2US.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum USML.L drawdown since its inception was -42.69%, roughly equal to the maximum R2US.L drawdown of -42.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for USML.L and R2US.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	USML.L	R2US.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.69%	-42.19%	-0.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.67%	-10.27%	+1.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.02%	-28.95%	-0.07%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.02%	-32.04%	+3.02%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-42.19%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.20%	+0.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.90%	-9.89%	-0.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.77%	3.24%	-0.47%

Volatility

USML.L vs. R2US.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 UCITS ETF A (USML.L) is 4.88%, while SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2US.L) has a volatility of 6.18%. This indicates that USML.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than R2US.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	USML.L	R2US.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.88%	6.18%	-1.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.53%	13.36%	-1.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.94%	18.46%	-1.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.17%	22.21%	-1.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.82%	22.04%	+1.78%

USML.L vs. R2US.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

USML.L has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than R2US.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

USML.L vs. R2US.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither USML.L nor R2US.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both USML.L and R2US.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, USML.L and R2US.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.

Which ETF is better, USML.L or R2US.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 R2US.L?

USML.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for R2US.L.

What is the main difference between USML.L and R2US.L?

USML.L tracks Russell 2000 TR USD, while R2US.L tracks Russell 2000 Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and State Street Global Advisors. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for USML.L and 0.30% for R2US.L.