PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XMUS.L vs. XDWH.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XMUS.L vs. XDWH.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI USA Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XMUS.L) and Xtrackers MSCI World Health Care UCITS ETF 1C (XDWH.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

XMUS.L is traded in GBp, while XDWH.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the XDWH.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMUS.L achieves a 10.43% return, which is significantly higher than XDWH.L's -5.22% return. Over the past 10 years, XMUS.L has outperformed XDWH.L with an annualized return of 16.36%, while XDWH.L has yielded a comparatively lower 8.45% annualized return.


XMUS.L

1D
-0.20%
1M
5.96%
YTD
10.43%
6M
10.35%
1Y
28.82%
3Y*
19.51%
5Y*
14.65%
10Y*
16.36%

XDWH.L

1D
0.72%
1M
0.94%
YTD
-5.22%
6M
-5.79%
1Y
10.01%
3Y*
2.03%
5Y*
5.04%
10Y*
8.45%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XMUS.L vs. XDWH.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XMUS.L
Xtrackers MSCI USA Swap UCITS ETF 1C
10.43%9.35%27.51%20.67%-10.46%29.34%16.78%26.80%0.08%10.99%
XDWH.L
Xtrackers MSCI World Health Care UCITS ETF 1C
-5.22%7.04%2.51%-1.38%5.83%21.71%9.57%18.28%7.59%9.77%

Correlation

The correlation between XMUS.L and XDWH.L is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.29

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.44

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.53

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.67

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 29, 2016

0.67

Over the past year, the correlation between XMUS.L and XDWH.L has dropped to 0.29 - well below their long-term average of 0.67, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

XMUS.L vs. XDWH.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
XMUS.L
XDWH.L

Technology

35.4%

-

Financial Services

11.6%

-

Communication Services

11.3%

-

Consumer Cyclical

10.1%

-

Healthcare

8.6%
98.9%

Industrials

8.6%

-

Consumer Defensive

4.8%
0.5%

Energy

3.6%

-

Utilities

2.3%

-

Real Estate

1.9%

-

Basic Materials

1.8%

-

Technology

XMUS.L
35.4%
XDWH.L

-

Financial Services

XMUS.L
11.6%
XDWH.L

-

Communication Services

XMUS.L
11.3%
XDWH.L

-

Consumer Cyclical

XMUS.L
10.1%
XDWH.L

-

Healthcare

XMUS.L
8.6%
XDWH.L
98.9%

Industrials

XMUS.L
8.6%
XDWH.L

-

Consumer Defensive

XMUS.L
4.8%
XDWH.L
0.5%

Energy

XMUS.L
3.6%
XDWH.L

-

Utilities

XMUS.L
2.3%
XDWH.L

-

Real Estate

XMUS.L
1.9%
XDWH.L

-

Basic Materials

XMUS.L
1.8%
XDWH.L

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

XMUS.L vs. XDWH.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XMUS.L
XMUS.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
XMUS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMUS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMUS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8383
Omega Ratio Rank
XMUS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMUS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7070
Martin Ratio Rank

XDWH.L
XDWH.L Risk / Return Rank: 2020
Overall Rank
XDWH.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1919
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XDWH.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2020
Sortino Ratio Rank
XDWH.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1919
Omega Ratio Rank
XDWH.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
XDWH.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

XMUS.L vs. XDWH.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI USA Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XMUS.L) and Xtrackers MSCI World Health Care UCITS ETF 1C (XDWH.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.


XMUS.LXDWH.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+2.00

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+2.50

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.50

1.13

+0.37

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.74

0.96

+2.78

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.96

2.50

+10.46

XMUS.L vs. XDWH.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMUS.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.69, which is higher than the XDWH.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMUS.L and XDWH.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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


XMUS.LXDWH.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.69

0.70

+2.00

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.01

0.36

+0.65

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

1.04

0.55

+0.49

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.75

0.57

+0.19

Drawdowns

XMUS.L vs. XDWH.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMUS.L drawdown since its inception was -34.33%, which is greater than XDWH.L's maximum drawdown of -18.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMUS.L and XDWH.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XMUS.LXDWH.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.33%

-18.80%

-15.53%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.68%

-10.43%

+2.75%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.47%

-18.80%

-2.67%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.47%

-18.80%

-2.67%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-25.90%

-18.80%

-7.10%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.20%

-8.57%

+8.37%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.71%

-4.41%

-0.30%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.22%

3.99%

-1.77%

Volatility

XMUS.L vs. XDWH.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers MSCI USA Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XMUS.L) is 2.62%, while Xtrackers MSCI World Health Care UCITS ETF 1C (XDWH.L) has a volatility of 4.50%. This indicates that XMUS.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XDWH.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XMUS.LXDWH.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.62%

4.50%

-1.88%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.26%

10.58%

-3.32%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.73%

14.31%

-3.58%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.55%

13.96%

+0.59%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.72%

15.48%

+0.24%

XMUS.L vs. XDWH.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMUS.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than XDWH.L's 0.25% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

XMUS.L vs. XDWH.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XMUS.L nor XDWH.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


XMUS.L and XDWH.L have a correlation of 0.29, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XMUS.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XMUS.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for XDWH.L.

XMUS.L is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while XDWH.L is Health & Biotech Equities. XMUS.L tracks Russell 1000 TR USD, while XDWH.L tracks MSCI World/Health Care NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for XMUS.L and 0.25% for XDWH.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMUS.L and XDWH.L

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer