PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XWFS.L vs. WDFE.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XWFS.L vs. WDFE.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI World Financials UCITS ETF 1C (XWFS.L) and Invesco S&P World Financials ESG UCITS ETF Acc (WDFE.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

XWFS.L is traded in GBP, while WDFE.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the WDFE.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XWFS.L achieves a -1.42% return, which is significantly lower than WDFE.L's -0.95% return.


XWFS.L

1D
-0.98%
1M
-0.19%
YTD
-1.42%
6M
2.61%
1Y
13.19%
3Y*
20.16%
5Y*
10Y*

WDFE.L

1D
-1.13%
1M
-0.62%
YTD
-0.95%
6M
3.73%
1Y
11.60%
3Y*
19.37%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XWFS.L vs. WDFE.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
XWFS.L
Xtrackers MSCI World Financials UCITS ETF 1C
-1.42%20.20%29.08%12.10%
WDFE.L
Invesco S&P World Financials ESG UCITS ETF Acc
-0.95%17.98%27.97%12.47%

Correlation

The correlation between XWFS.L and WDFE.L is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


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

0.91

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

0.87

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 18, 2023

0.87

The correlation between XWFS.L and WDFE.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

XWFS.L vs. WDFE.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XWFS.L
XWFS.L Risk / Return Rank: 2929
Overall Rank
XWFS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2929
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XWFS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
XWFS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2727
Omega Ratio Rank
XWFS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2828
Calmar Ratio Rank
XWFS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3030
Martin Ratio Rank

WDFE.L
WDFE.L Risk / Return Rank: 2424
Overall Rank
WDFE.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2323
Sharpe Ratio Rank
WDFE.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2424
Sortino Ratio Rank
WDFE.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2222
Omega Ratio Rank
WDFE.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
WDFE.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2626
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.

XWFS.L vs. WDFE.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI World Financials UCITS ETF 1C (XWFS.L) and Invesco S&P World Financials ESG UCITS ETF Acc (WDFE.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.


XWFS.LWDFE.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.19

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.27

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.16

+0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.36

1.27

+0.09

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.37

4.17

+0.19

XWFS.L vs. WDFE.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XWFS.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.06, which is comparable to the WDFE.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XWFS.L and WDFE.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


XWFS.LWDFE.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.06

0.87

+0.19

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.82

1.24

-0.42

Drawdowns

XWFS.L vs. WDFE.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XWFS.L drawdown since its inception was -16.47%, roughly equal to the maximum WDFE.L drawdown of -16.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XWFS.L and WDFE.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XWFS.LWDFE.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-16.47%

-16.32%

-0.15%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.64%

-9.07%

-0.57%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.47%

-16.32%

-0.15%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.91%

-2.44%

-0.47%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.11%

-2.17%

-1.94%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.01%

2.77%

+0.24%

Volatility

XWFS.L vs. WDFE.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers MSCI World Financials UCITS ETF 1C (XWFS.L) is 2.90%, while Invesco S&P World Financials ESG UCITS ETF Acc (WDFE.L) has a volatility of 3.43%. This indicates that XWFS.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than WDFE.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XWFS.LWDFE.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.90%

3.43%

-0.53%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.62%

10.44%

-0.82%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.43%

13.29%

-0.86%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.02%

14.59%

+1.43%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.02%

14.59%

+1.43%

XWFS.L vs. WDFE.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XWFS.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than WDFE.L's 0.18% 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

XWFS.L vs. WDFE.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XWFS.L nor WDFE.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.91, XWFS.L and WDFE.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, WDFE.L is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

WDFE.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for XWFS.L.

XWFS.L tracks MSCI World/Financials NR USD, while WDFE.L tracks S&P World ESG Enhanced Financials Index. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XWFS.L and 0.18% for WDFE.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XWFS.L and WDFE.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