PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
BCHS.L vs. LEGR.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

BCHS.L vs. LEGR.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco CoinShares Global Blockchain UCITS ETF Acc (BCHS.L) and First Trust Indxx Innovative Transaction & Process UCITS ETF (LEGR.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCHS.L achieves a 26.66% return, which is significantly higher than LEGR.L's 12.71% return.


BCHS.L

1D
-1.63%
1M
10.46%
YTD
26.66%
6M
16.86%
1Y
61.41%
3Y*
42.48%
5Y*
12.62%
10Y*

LEGR.L

1D
0.18%
1M
7.47%
YTD
12.71%
6M
15.21%
1Y
32.25%
3Y*
20.89%
5Y*
13.08%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BCHS.L vs. LEGR.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
BCHS.L
Invesco CoinShares Global Blockchain UCITS ETF Acc
26.66%35.24%18.50%58.28%-46.25%26.00%89.05%13.21%
LEGR.L
First Trust Indxx Innovative Transaction & Process UCITS ETF
12.71%22.20%18.32%15.73%-8.88%18.51%15.53%10.23%

Correlation

The correlation between BCHS.L and LEGR.L is 0.55, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


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

0.55

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

0.56

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

0.61

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 13, 2019

0.60

The correlation between BCHS.L and LEGR.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

BCHS.L vs. LEGR.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
BCHS.L
LEGR.L

Financial Services

57.4%
42.5%

Technology

30.6%
27.3%

Consumer Cyclical

6.4%
8.5%

Communication Services

3.9%
8.9%

Utilities

1.2%
2.1%

Industrials

0.5%
5.6%

Healthcare

0.0%
1.3%

Consumer Defensive

0.0%
1.4%

Basic Materials

0.0%
1.6%

Energy

0.0%
0.8%

Real Estate

0.0%

-

Financial Services

BCHS.L
57.4%
LEGR.L
42.5%

Technology

BCHS.L
30.6%
LEGR.L
27.3%

Consumer Cyclical

BCHS.L
6.4%
LEGR.L
8.5%

Communication Services

BCHS.L
3.9%
LEGR.L
8.9%

Utilities

BCHS.L
1.2%
LEGR.L
2.1%

Industrials

BCHS.L
0.5%
LEGR.L
5.6%

Healthcare

BCHS.L
0.0%
LEGR.L
1.3%

Consumer Defensive

BCHS.L
0.0%
LEGR.L
1.4%

Basic Materials

BCHS.L
0.0%
LEGR.L
1.6%

Energy

BCHS.L
0.0%
LEGR.L
0.8%

Real Estate

BCHS.L
0.0%
LEGR.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

BCHS.L vs. LEGR.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

BCHS.L
BCHS.L Risk / Return Rank: 4141
Overall Rank
BCHS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4848
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BCHS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4545
Sortino Ratio Rank
BCHS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4141
Omega Ratio Rank
BCHS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4343
Calmar Ratio Rank
BCHS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3030
Martin Ratio Rank

LEGR.L
LEGR.L Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
LEGR.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6868
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LEGR.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
LEGR.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
LEGR.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
LEGR.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
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.

BCHS.L vs. LEGR.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco CoinShares Global Blockchain UCITS ETF Acc (BCHS.L) and First Trust Indxx Innovative Transaction & Process UCITS ETF (LEGR.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.


BCHS.LLEGR.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.76

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.05

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.26

1.43

-0.17

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.07

4.21

-2.14

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.20

14.27

-10.07

BCHS.L vs. LEGR.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BCHS.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.63, which is lower than the LEGR.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCHS.L and LEGR.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


BCHS.LLEGR.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.63

2.40

-0.76

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.35

0.87

-0.51

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.71

0.80

-0.09

Drawdowns

BCHS.L vs. LEGR.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCHS.L drawdown since its inception was -55.89%, which is greater than LEGR.L's maximum drawdown of -26.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCHS.L and LEGR.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


BCHS.LLEGR.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-55.89%

-26.80%

-29.09%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-29.49%

-7.63%

-21.86%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-35.64%

-15.29%

-20.35%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-55.89%

-16.60%

-39.29%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.94%

-1.10%

-2.84%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-21.40%

-4.35%

-17.05%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

14.57%

2.25%

+12.32%

Volatility

BCHS.L vs. LEGR.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco CoinShares Global Blockchain UCITS ETF Acc (BCHS.L) has a higher volatility of 10.49% compared to First Trust Indxx Innovative Transaction & Process UCITS ETF (LEGR.L) at 4.90%. This indicates that BCHS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LEGR.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


BCHS.LLEGR.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.49%

4.90%

+5.59%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

24.68%

10.68%

+14.00%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

37.46%

13.40%

+24.06%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

35.61%

15.11%

+20.50%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

34.37%

17.35%

+17.02%

BCHS.L vs. LEGR.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both BCHS.L and LEGR.L have an expense ratio of 0.65%.


Dividends

BCHS.L vs. LEGR.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither BCHS.L nor LEGR.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


BCHS.L and LEGR.L have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Both ETFs have the same 0.65% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

BCHS.L and LEGR.L have the same expense ratio: 0.65% per year.

Both ETFs track MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and First Trust.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for BCHS.L and LEGR.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