WDNR.DE vs. INRG.L
Compare and contrast key facts about Amundi Global BioEnergy ESG Screened UCITS ETF EUR Acc (WDNR.DE) and iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.L).
WDNR.DE and INRG.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. WDNR.DE is a passively managed fund by Amundi that tracks the performance of the Bloomberg BioEnergy ESG. It was launched on Jan 31, 2018. INRG.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD. It was launched on Jul 9, 2007. Both WDNR.DE and INRG.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: WDNR.DE or INRG.L.
Key characteristics
| WDNR.DE | INRG.L | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | -7.99% | -10.21% |
| 1Y Return | -10.96% | -10.72% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 16.91% | -11.01% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 5.76% | 5.07% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 1.75% | 7.03% |
| Sharpe Ratio | -0.70 | -0.45 |
| Daily Std Dev | 13.96% | 23.88% |
| Max Drawdown | -62.27% | -85.09% |
| Current Drawdown | -19.78% | -53.97% |
Correlation
The correlation between WDNR.DE and INRG.L is 0.36, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Performance
WDNR.DE vs. INRG.L - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, WDNR.DE achieves a -7.99% return, which is significantly higher than INRG.L's -10.21% return. Over the past 10 years, WDNR.DE has underperformed INRG.L with an annualized return of 1.75%, while INRG.L has yielded a comparatively higher 7.03% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
WDNR.DE vs. INRG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
WDNR.DE has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than INRG.L's 0.65% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
WDNR.DE vs. INRG.L - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi Global BioEnergy ESG Screened UCITS ETF EUR Acc (WDNR.DE) and iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.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.
Dividends
WDNR.DE vs. INRG.L - Dividend Comparison
WDNR.DE has not paid dividends to shareholders, while INRG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.09%.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WDNR.DE Amundi Global BioEnergy ESG Screened UCITS ETF EUR Acc | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
INRG.L iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 1.09% | 1.00% | 0.62% | 1.01% | 0.61% | 2.05% | 3.68% | 3.69% | 3.65% | 3.90% | 3.05% | 2.70% |
Drawdowns
WDNR.DE vs. INRG.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum WDNR.DE drawdown since its inception was -62.27%, smaller than the maximum INRG.L drawdown of -85.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for WDNR.DE and INRG.L. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
WDNR.DE vs. INRG.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Amundi Global BioEnergy ESG Screened UCITS ETF EUR Acc (WDNR.DE) is 4.56%, while iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.L) has a volatility of 6.33%. This indicates that WDNR.DE experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than INRG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.