PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
COPG.L vs. UIFS.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

COPG.L vs. UIFS.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Global X Copper Miners UCITS ETF USD Acc (COPG.L) and iShares S&P 500 Financials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (UIFS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

COPG.L is traded in GBP, while UIFS.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the UIFS.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, COPG.L achieves a 24.91% return, which is significantly higher than UIFS.L's -4.82% return.


COPG.L

1D
-0.95%
1M
15.82%
YTD
24.91%
6M
35.76%
1Y
119.81%
3Y*
34.51%
5Y*
10Y*

UIFS.L

1D
3.20%
1M
2.23%
YTD
-4.82%
6M
-2.63%
1Y
4.61%
3Y*
15.44%
5Y*
9.10%
10Y*
13.04%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

COPG.L vs. UIFS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
COPG.L
Global X Copper Miners UCITS ETF USD Acc
24.91%82.05%3.66%3.03%14.35%-1.92%
UIFS.L
iShares S&P 500 Financials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
-4.82%7.07%32.24%6.12%-0.45%-1.14%

Correlation

The correlation between COPG.L and UIFS.L is 0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.


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

0.06

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

0.13

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2021

0.22

The correlation between COPG.L and UIFS.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.06 (1 year) to 0.22 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

COPG.L vs. UIFS.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

COPG.L
COPG.L Risk / Return Rank: 8282
Overall Rank
COPG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9191
Sharpe Ratio Rank
COPG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8181
Sortino Ratio Rank
COPG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7676
Omega Ratio Rank
COPG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
COPG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
Martin Ratio Rank

UIFS.L
UIFS.L Risk / Return Rank: 1414
Overall Rank
UIFS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1515
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UIFS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1414
Sortino Ratio Rank
UIFS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1414
Omega Ratio Rank
UIFS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1414
Calmar Ratio Rank
UIFS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1313
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.

COPG.L vs. UIFS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Copper Miners UCITS ETF USD Acc (COPG.L) and iShares S&P 500 Financials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (UIFS.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.


COPG.LUIFS.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+2.81

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+3.02

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.44

1.07

+0.38

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.53

0.36

+4.18

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.57

0.83

+13.74

COPG.L vs. UIFS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current COPG.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.14, which is higher than the UIFS.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of COPG.L and UIFS.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


COPG.LUIFS.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.14

0.33

+2.81

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.52

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.65

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.77

0.62

+0.15

Drawdowns

COPG.L vs. UIFS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum COPG.L drawdown since its inception was -38.84%, which is greater than UIFS.L's maximum drawdown of -35.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for COPG.L and UIFS.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


COPG.LUIFS.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-38.84%

-35.31%

-3.53%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-26.29%

-12.90%

-13.39%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-38.84%

-18.72%

-20.12%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.72%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.31%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.64%

-6.76%

+1.12%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-13.96%

-6.08%

-7.88%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.19%

5.53%

+2.66%

Volatility

COPG.L vs. UIFS.L - Volatility Comparison

Global X Copper Miners UCITS ETF USD Acc (COPG.L) has a higher volatility of 14.11% compared to iShares S&P 500 Financials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (UIFS.L) at 4.41%. This indicates that COPG.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than UIFS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


COPG.LUIFS.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

14.11%

4.41%

+9.70%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

32.19%

10.58%

+21.61%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

37.96%

13.98%

+23.98%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

33.82%

17.54%

+16.28%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

33.82%

20.12%

+13.70%

COPG.L vs. UIFS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

COPG.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than UIFS.L's 0.15% expense ratio.


Dividends

COPG.L vs. UIFS.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither COPG.L nor UIFS.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


COPG.L and UIFS.L have a correlation of 0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

UIFS.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for COPG.L.

COPG.L is categorized as Commodity Producers Equities, while UIFS.L is Financials Equities. COPG.L tracks Solactive Global Copper Miners Total Return Index, while UIFS.L tracks S&P 500 Capped 35/20 Financials Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for COPG.L and 0.15% for UIFS.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for COPG.L and UIFS.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