XMLV vs. ACWV

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

XMLV (Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XMLV is a Low Volatility fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Low Volatility Index, while ACWV is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XMLV returned 8.01%/yr vs 7.18%/yr for ACWV. Their 0.76 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. XMLV charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

Performance

XMLV vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF (XMLV) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMLV achieves a 11.48% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 5.75% return. Over the past 10 years, XMLV has outperformed ACWV with an annualized return of 8.01%, while ACWV has yielded a comparatively lower 7.18% annualized return.

XMLV

• 1D: -0.40%
• 1M: 1.77%
• 6M: 8.77%
• YTD: 11.48%
• 1Y: 15.65%
• 3Y*: 11.57%
• 5Y*: 7.14%
• 10Y*: 8.01%
• ALL TIME*: 9.98%

ACWV

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: 1.99%
• 6M: 4.00%
• YTD: 5.75%
• 1Y: 8.69%
• 3Y*: 10.41%
• 5Y*: 5.79%
• 10Y*: 7.18%
• ALL TIME*: 8.75%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	$12.13M	$11.24M	$12.40M
XMLV Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF	$1.62M	$1.47M	$1.28M

XMLV vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
XMLV Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF	11.48%	5.55%	17.08%	1.86%	-6.55%	23.00%	-8.42%	23.77%	-0.16%	13.72%
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	5.75%	11.04%	11.38%	8.23%	-10.36%	13.97%	3.04%	21.04%	-1.42%	18.57%

Correlation

The correlation between XMLV and ACWV is 0.56, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.56
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.69
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.74
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 15, 2013	0.76

Over the past year, the correlation between XMLV and ACWV has dropped to 0.56 - well below their long-term average of 0.76, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

XMLV vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XMLV	ACWV
Real Estate	32.8%	0.6%
Financial Services	26.0%	13.5%
Utilities	17.8%	7.5%
Industrials	10.0%	8.1%
Consumer Cyclical	4.4%	5.3%
Energy	3.7%	3.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.2%	9.7%
Healthcare	2.0%	13.8%
Basic Materials	1.0%	1.5%
Communication Services	1.0%	11.3%
Technology	1.0%	25.3%

Return for Risk

XMLV vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

XMLV

XMLV Risk / Return Rank: 61
XMLV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
XMLV Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
XMLV Omega Ratio Rank: 55
XMLV Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
XMLV Martin Ratio Rank: 61

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 44
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 45
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 39

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

XMLV vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF (XMLV) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	XMLV	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.43	1.14	+0.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.13	1.71	+0.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.21	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.19	1.45	+0.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.26	4.10	+3.16

XMLV vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMLV Sharpe Ratio is 1.43, which is comparable to the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMLV and ACWV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

XMLV vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMLV drawdown since its inception was -39.86%, which is greater than ACWV's maximum drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMLV and ACWV.

Drawdown Indicators

	XMLV	ACWV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.86%	-28.82%	-11.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.03%	-6.37%	-0.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.80%	-7.56%	-6.24%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.53%	-18.14%	+1.61%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.86%	-28.82%	-11.04%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.14%	-0.36%	-1.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.22%	-3.10%	-1.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.12%	2.24%	-0.12%

Volatility

XMLV vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF (XMLV) has a higher volatility of 3.85% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 2.56%. This indicates that XMLV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XMLV	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.85%	2.56%	+1.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.30%	6.41%	+1.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.82%	8.08%	+2.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.50%	10.30%	+4.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.97%	12.30%	+4.67%

XMLV vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMLV has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

XMLV vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

XMLV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.85%, more than ACWV's 1.90% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	1.90%	2.09%	2.33%	2.41%	2.18%	1.92%	1.77%	2.54%	2.32%	2.04%	2.56%	2.28%
XMLV Invesco S&P MidCap Low Volatility ETF	2.85%	2.87%	2.23%	2.34%	2.05%	1.14%	1.93%	2.02%	2.13%	1.74%	1.72%	1.85%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XMLV and ACWV in my portfolio?

XMLV and ACWV have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XMLV or ACWV?

XMLV has higher volatility (3.85%) compared to ACWV (2.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XMLV dropped -39.86% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, XMLV or ACWV?

On 10-year performance, XMLV leads with 8.01% vs 7.18% for ACWV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 2.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XMLV or ACWV?

Over the 10-year period, XMLV has performed better with a 8.01% return vs 7.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XMLV or ACWV?

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for XMLV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, XMLV or ACWV?

XMLV has the higher dividend yield at 2.85%, compared with 1.90% for ACWV.

What is the main difference between XMLV and ACWV?

XMLV is categorized as Low Volatility, while ACWV is Global Equities. XMLV tracks S&P MidCap 400 Low Volatility Index, while ACWV tracks MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XMLV and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XMLV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.43 vs 1.14), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.