BNKU.L vs. XLFQ.L

Last updated Jul 29, 2026

BNKU.L (Lyxor S&P 500 Banks UCITS ETF - Acc) and XLFQ.L (Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF) are both Financials Equities funds - BNKU.L tracks the S&P 500 Capped 35/20 Banks and Diversified Financials Select Index while XLFQ.L tracks the MSCI World/Financials NR USD. Both are passively managed. Their 0.47 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. BNKU.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for XLFQ.L.

Performance

BNKU.L vs. XLFQ.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Lyxor S&P 500 Banks UCITS ETF - Acc (BNKU.L) and Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF (XLFQ.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

BNKU.L

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

XLFQ.L

• 1D: 1.09%
• 1M: 6.83%
• 6M: 8.72%
• YTD: 4.96%
• 1Y: 9.66%
• 3Y*: 19.20%
• 5Y*: 10.89%
• 10Y*: 13.28%
• ALL TIME*: 8.30%

*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)
XLFQ.L Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF	$121.47K	$231.42K	$187.61K

BNKU.L vs. XLFQ.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BNKU.L Lyxor S&P 500 Banks UCITS ETF - Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	28.68%	-7.96%	36.49%	-19.86%
XLFQ.L Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF	4.96%	15.15%	29.95%	11.72%	-11.04%	36.65%	-3.70%	32.26%	-14.14%

Correlation

The correlation between BNKU.L and XLFQ.L is 0.47, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 11, 2018	0.47

Return for Risk

BNKU.L vs. XLFQ.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

BNKU.L

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

XLFQ.L

XLFQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 26
XLFQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
XLFQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
XLFQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 26
XLFQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
XLFQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 23

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.

BNKU.L vs. XLFQ.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor S&P 500 Banks UCITS ETF - Acc (BNKU.L) and Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF (XLFQ.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.

	BNKU.L	XLFQ.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	0.68	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.08	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.12	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	0.67	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	1.66	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	BNKU.L	XLFQ.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	—	-42.38%	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-14.29%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.97%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.74%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-42.38%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	—	0.00%	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	—	-12.39%	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	5.79%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BNKU.L	XLFQ.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	3.89%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	10.55%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	14.11%	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	—	23.14%	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	—	23.00%	—

BNKU.L vs. XLFQ.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

BNKU.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than XLFQ.L's 0.14% 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

BNKU.L vs. XLFQ.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither BNKU.L nor XLFQ.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BNKU.L and XLFQ.L in my portfolio?

BNKU.L and XLFQ.L have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, BNKU.L or XLFQ.L?

On fees, XLFQ.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BNKU.L or XLFQ.L?

XLFQ.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for BNKU.L.

What is the main difference between BNKU.L and XLFQ.L?

BNKU.L tracks S&P 500 Capped 35/20 Banks and Diversified Financials Select Index, while XLFQ.L tracks MSCI World/Financials NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for BNKU.L and 0.14% for XLFQ.L.