PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XMWD.L vs. LGGL.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XMWD.L vs. LGGL.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI World Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XMWD.L) and L&G Global Equity UCITS ETF (LGGL.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with XMWD.L having a 9.86% return and LGGL.L slightly higher at 9.95%.


XMWD.L

1D
-0.21%
1M
1.07%
6M
8.01%
YTD
9.86%
1Y
21.40%
3Y*
18.64%
5Y*
11.24%
10Y*
12.88%

LGGL.L

1D
-0.18%
1M
1.19%
6M
8.12%
YTD
9.95%
1Y
21.82%
3Y*
18.98%
5Y*
11.53%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XMWD.L vs. LGGL.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
XMWD.L
Xtrackers MSCI World Swap UCITS ETF 1C
9.86%20.84%18.87%24.27%-18.25%22.03%16.04%27.14%-9.08%
LGGL.L
L&G Global Equity UCITS ETF
9.95%21.18%19.20%25.02%-18.03%21.94%16.35%26.98%-7.73%

Correlation

The correlation between XMWD.L and LGGL.L is 0.99 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.


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

0.99

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

0.98

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

0.99

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 9, 2018

0.99

The correlation between XMWD.L and LGGL.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.98 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

XMWD.L vs. LGGL.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
XMWD.L
LGGL.L

Technology

31.3%
31.5%

Financial Services

15.1%
15.2%

Industrials

10.9%
10.5%

Consumer Cyclical

9.2%
9.4%

Communication Services

8.9%
9.2%

Healthcare

8.6%
8.6%

Consumer Defensive

4.9%
4.9%

Energy

3.8%
3.6%

Basic Materials

3.2%
3.2%

Utilities

2.4%
2.3%

Real Estate

1.7%
1.7%

Technology

XMWD.L
31.3%
LGGL.L
31.5%

Financial Services

XMWD.L
15.1%
LGGL.L
15.2%

Industrials

XMWD.L
10.9%
LGGL.L
10.5%

Consumer Cyclical

XMWD.L
9.2%
LGGL.L
9.4%

Communication Services

XMWD.L
8.9%
LGGL.L
9.2%

Healthcare

XMWD.L
8.6%
LGGL.L
8.6%

Consumer Defensive

XMWD.L
4.9%
LGGL.L
4.9%

Energy

XMWD.L
3.8%
LGGL.L
3.6%

Basic Materials

XMWD.L
3.2%
LGGL.L
3.2%

Utilities

XMWD.L
2.4%
LGGL.L
2.3%

Real Estate

XMWD.L
1.7%
LGGL.L
1.7%

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

XMWD.L vs. LGGL.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XMWD.L
XMWD.L Risk / Return Rank: 6969
Overall Rank
XMWD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMWD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMWD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
XMWD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6363
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMWD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7272
Martin Ratio Rank

LGGL.L
LGGL.L Risk / Return Rank: 7070
Overall Rank
LGGL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LGGL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
LGGL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
LGGL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
LGGL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
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.

XMWD.L vs. LGGL.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI World Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XMWD.L) and L&G Global Equity UCITS ETF (LGGL.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.

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.


XMWD.LLGGL.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.04

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.05

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.32

1.32

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.51

2.58

-0.07

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.39

10.64

-0.25

XMWD.L vs. LGGL.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMWD.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.73, which is comparable to the LGGL.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMWD.L and LGGL.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...

Drawdowns

XMWD.L vs. LGGL.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMWD.L drawdown since its inception was -55.68%, which is greater than LGGL.L's maximum drawdown of -33.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMWD.L and LGGL.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XMWD.LLGGL.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-55.68%

-33.89%

-21.79%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.50%

-8.42%

-0.08%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.55%

-17.79%

+0.24%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.94%

-25.76%

-0.18%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.04%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.50%

-0.40%

-0.10%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.29%

-4.92%

-5.37%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.05%

2.05%

0.00%

Volatility

XMWD.L vs. LGGL.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers MSCI World Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XMWD.L) and L&G Global Equity UCITS ETF (LGGL.L) have volatilities of 3.18% and 3.14%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XMWD.LLGGL.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.18%

3.14%

+0.04%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.87%

9.87%

0.00%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.31%

12.29%

+0.02%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.69%

15.65%

+0.04%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.73%

17.11%

-1.38%

XMWD.L vs. LGGL.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMWD.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than LGGL.L's 0.10% expense ratio.


Dividends

XMWD.L vs. LGGL.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XMWD.L nor LGGL.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.99, XMWD.L and LGGL.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

On fees, LGGL.L is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

LGGL.L is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for XMWD.L.

XMWD.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD, while LGGL.L tracks Solactive Core Developed Markets Large & Mid Cap USD Index NTR. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and L&G. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for XMWD.L and 0.10% for LGGL.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMWD.L and LGGL.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