XMAW.L vs. FCSG.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XMAW.L (Xtrackers MSCI AC World ESG Screened UCITS ETF 1C) and FCSG.L (First Trust Global Capital Strength ESG Leaders UCITS ETF Class A Accumulation) are both Global Equities funds tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD, from Xtrackers and First Trust respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XMAW.L returned 12.36%/yr vs 5.92%/yr for FCSG.L. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XMAW.L charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for FCSG.L.

Performance

XMAW.L vs. FCSG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI AC World ESG Screened UCITS ETF 1C (XMAW.L) and First Trust Global Capital Strength ESG Leaders UCITS ETF Class A Accumulation (FCSG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMAW.L achieves a 11.58% return, which is significantly higher than FCSG.L's -1.69% return.

XMAW.L

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: 5.65%
• YTD: 11.58%
• 6M: 12.10%
• 1Y: 30.53%
• 3Y*: 18.30%
• 5Y*: 12.36%
• 10Y*: 13.42%

FCSG.L

• 1D: 0.72%
• 1M: 1.84%
• YTD: -1.69%
• 6M: -1.06%
• 1Y: -0.11%
• 3Y*: 6.29%
• 5Y*: 5.92%
• 10Y*: —

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

XMAW.L vs. FCSG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
XMAW.L Xtrackers MSCI AC World ESG Screened UCITS ETF 1C	11.58%	13.86%	20.55%	16.87%	-10.40%	18.45%
FCSG.L First Trust Global Capital Strength ESG Leaders UCITS ETF Class A Accumulation	-1.69%	3.93%	11.42%	6.17%	-3.68%	23.55%

Correlation

The correlation between XMAW.L and FCSG.L is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.31
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.54
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 11, 2021	0.65

Over the past year, the correlation between XMAW.L and FCSG.L has dropped to 0.31 - well below their long-term average of 0.65, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

XMAW.L vs. FCSG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XMAW.L	FCSG.L
Technology	31.4%	14.0%
Financial Services	17.2%	29.4%
Industrials	10.2%	17.7%
Communication Services	9.7%	3.8%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	4.0%
Healthcare	8.7%	5.7%
Basic Materials	3.4%	4.6%
Consumer Defensive	3.3%	20.9%
Energy	2.7%	-
Real Estate	1.9%	-
Utilities	1.9%	-

Return for Risk

XMAW.L vs. FCSG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XMAW.L

XMAW.L Risk / Return Rank: 84
XMAW.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
XMAW.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
XMAW.L Omega Ratio Rank: 86
XMAW.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
XMAW.L Martin Ratio Rank: 83

FCSG.L

FCSG.L Risk / Return Rank: 9
FCSG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
FCSG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
FCSG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8
FCSG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
FCSG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9

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.

XMAW.L vs. FCSG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI AC World ESG Screened UCITS ETF 1C (XMAW.L) and First Trust Global Capital Strength ESG Leaders UCITS ETF Class A Accumulation (FCSG.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.

	XMAW.L	FCSG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.74	-0.01	+2.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.77	0.04	+3.73
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.01	+0.52
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.12	-0.01	+4.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.61	-0.04	+16.65
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XMAW.L vs. FCSG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMAW.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.74, which is higher than the FCSG.L Sharpe Ratio of -0.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMAW.L and FCSG.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

	XMAW.L	FCSG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.74	-0.01	+2.75
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.92	0.55	+0.37
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.92	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.86	0.67	+0.18

Drawdowns

XMAW.L vs. FCSG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMAW.L drawdown since its inception was -25.05%, which is greater than FCSG.L's maximum drawdown of -11.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMAW.L and FCSG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XMAW.L	FCSG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.05%	-11.39%	-13.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.37%	-7.80%	+0.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.92%	-9.70%	-9.22%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.92%	-11.39%	-7.53%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-25.05%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.49%	-4.95%	+4.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.83%	-2.65%	-1.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.83%	3.12%	-1.29%

Volatility

XMAW.L vs. FCSG.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers MSCI AC World ESG Screened UCITS ETF 1C (XMAW.L) has a higher volatility of 3.05% compared to First Trust Global Capital Strength ESG Leaders UCITS ETF Class A Accumulation (FCSG.L) at 2.83%. This indicates that XMAW.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FCSG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XMAW.L	FCSG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.05%	2.83%	+0.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.23%	6.95%	+1.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.09%	8.82%	+2.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.40%	10.70%	+2.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.60%	10.67%	+3.93%

XMAW.L vs. FCSG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMAW.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than FCSG.L's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMAW.L vs. FCSG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XMAW.L nor FCSG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XMAW.L and FCSG.L in my portfolio?

XMAW.L and FCSG.L have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, XMAW.L or FCSG.L?

On fees, XMAW.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, XMAW.L or FCSG.L?

XMAW.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for FCSG.L.

What is the main difference between XMAW.L and FCSG.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI ACWI NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XMAW.L and 0.75% for FCSG.L.