VALW.L vs. ^GSPC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

VALW.L (SPDR MSCI World Value UCITS ETF) is Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Value NR USD, while ^GSPC (S&P 500 Index) is an index. Over the past 5 years, VALW.L returned 14.46%/yr vs 13.50%/yr for ^GSPC. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

VALW.L vs. ^GSPC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in SPDR MSCI World Value UCITS ETF (VALW.L) and S&P 500 Index (^GSPC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

VALW.L is traded in GBP, while ^GSPC is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the ^GSPC values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, VALW.L achieves a 19.01% return, which is significantly higher than ^GSPC's 10.75% return.

VALW.L

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: 9.99%
• YTD: 19.01%
• 6M: 21.67%
• 1Y: 46.02%
• 3Y*: 21.08%
• 5Y*: 14.46%
• 10Y*: —

^GSPC

• 1D: -0.47%
• 1M: 5.75%
• YTD: 10.75%
• 6M: 9.70%
• 1Y: 27.40%
• 3Y*: 17.84%
• 5Y*: 13.50%
• 10Y*: 14.55%

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

VALW.L vs. ^GSPC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
VALW.L SPDR MSCI World Value UCITS ETF	19.01%	27.01%	5.92%	16.43%	0.09%	20.68%	-18.17%
^GSPC S&P 500 Index	10.75%	8.10%	25.46%	18.02%	-9.86%	28.09%	2.52%

Correlation

The correlation between VALW.L and ^GSPC is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.48
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.39
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 3, 2020	0.43

Return for Risk

VALW.L vs. ^GSPC — Risk / Return Rank

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

VALW.L

VALW.L Risk / Return Rank: 94
VALW.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
VALW.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
VALW.L Omega Ratio Rank: 95
VALW.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
VALW.L Martin Ratio Rank: 93

^GSPC

^GSPC Risk / Return Rank: 73
^GSPC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
^GSPC Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
^GSPC Omega Ratio Rank: 72
^GSPC Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
^GSPC Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

VALW.L vs. ^GSPC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR MSCI World Value UCITS ETF (VALW.L) and S&P 500 Index (^GSPC). 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.

	VALW.L	^GSPC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.84	2.38	+1.46
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	5.27	3.12	+2.15
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.72	1.45	+0.28
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.51	3.43	+3.08
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	24.41	12.79	+11.62
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

VALW.L vs. ^GSPC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current VALW.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.84, which is higher than the ^GSPC Sharpe Ratio of 2.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of VALW.L and ^GSPC, 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

	VALW.L	^GSPC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.84	2.38	+1.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.14	0.86	+0.29
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.80	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.67	0.58	+0.09

Drawdowns

VALW.L vs. ^GSPC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum VALW.L drawdown since its inception was -28.59%, smaller than the maximum ^GSPC drawdown of -37.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for VALW.L and ^GSPC.

Drawdown Indicators

	VALW.L	^GSPC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.59%	-37.07%	+8.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.04%	-8.03%	+0.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.24%	-22.15%	+7.91%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-14.24%	-22.15%	+7.91%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-26.01%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.26%	-0.47%	+0.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.55%	-5.32%	+0.77%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.88%	2.15%	-0.27%

Volatility

VALW.L vs. ^GSPC - Volatility Comparison

SPDR MSCI World Value UCITS ETF (VALW.L) has a higher volatility of 4.22% compared to S&P 500 Index (^GSPC) at 2.76%. This indicates that VALW.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ^GSPC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	VALW.L	^GSPC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.22%	2.76%	+1.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.57%	8.23%	+1.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.92%	11.56%	+0.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.65%	15.86%	-3.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.68%	18.16%	-1.48%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both VALW.L and ^GSPC in my portfolio?

VALW.L and ^GSPC have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.