DAGB.L vs. XLKQ.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

DAGB.L (VanEck Digital Assets Equity UCITS ETF A USD Acc) and XLKQ.L (Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc) are both Technology Equities funds - DAGB.L tracks the MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD while XLKQ.L tracks the S&P Select Sector Capped 20% Technology Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, DAGB.L returned -1.09%/yr vs 26.60%/yr for XLKQ.L. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. DAGB.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for XLKQ.L.

Performance

DAGB.L vs. XLKQ.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in VanEck Digital Assets Equity UCITS ETF A USD Acc (DAGB.L) and Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc (XLKQ.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DAGB.L achieves a 29.14% return, which is significantly higher than XLKQ.L's 23.81% return.

DAGB.L

• 1D: -3.10%
• 1M: 0.20%
• YTD: 29.14%
• 6M: 12.28%
• 1Y: 47.75%
• 3Y*: 52.74%
• 5Y*: -1.09%
• 10Y*: —

XLKQ.L

• 1D: -2.23%
• 1M: 14.41%
• YTD: 23.81%
• 6M: 22.31%
• 1Y: 54.52%
• 3Y*: 33.18%
• 5Y*: 26.60%
• 10Y*: 27.22%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

DAGB.L vs. XLKQ.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
DAGB.L VanEck Digital Assets Equity UCITS ETF A USD Acc	29.14%	2.77%	31.18%	325.83%	-85.21%	-24.14%
XLKQ.L Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc	23.81%	15.76%	44.03%	51.84%	-20.58%	31.21%

Correlation

The correlation between DAGB.L and XLKQ.L is 0.51, 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	0.51
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.43
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.49
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 7, 2021	0.49

The correlation between DAGB.L and XLKQ.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.43 to 0.51 - a consistent structural relationship.

DAGB.L vs. XLKQ.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DAGB.L	XLKQ.L
Financial Services	62.4%	7.3%
Technology	34.7%	91.2%
Consumer Cyclical	2.9%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	1.5%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

DAGB.L vs. XLKQ.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

DAGB.L

DAGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 25
DAGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
DAGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
DAGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 26
DAGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
DAGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 19

XLKQ.L

XLKQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 73
XLKQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
XLKQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
XLKQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 78
XLKQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
XLKQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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.

DAGB.L vs. XLKQ.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Digital Assets Equity UCITS ETF A USD Acc (DAGB.L) and Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc (XLKQ.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.

	DAGB.L	XLKQ.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.89	2.83	-1.94
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.47	3.59	-2.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.46	-0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.13	3.24	-2.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.03	8.42	-6.39
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DAGB.L vs. XLKQ.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DAGB.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.89, which is lower than the XLKQ.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DAGB.L and XLKQ.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	DAGB.L	XLKQ.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.89	2.83	-1.94
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.02	1.21	-1.22
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	1.33	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.05	1.33	-1.38

Drawdowns

DAGB.L vs. XLKQ.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DAGB.L drawdown since its inception was -91.23%, which is greater than XLKQ.L's maximum drawdown of -28.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DAGB.L and XLKQ.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	DAGB.L	XLKQ.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-91.23%	-28.74%	-62.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-45.63%	-16.76%	-28.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-58.45%	-28.74%	-29.71%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-91.23%	-28.74%	-62.49%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-28.74%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-33.56%	-2.84%	-30.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-57.60%	-5.04%	-52.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	25.31%	6.45%	+18.86%

Volatility

DAGB.L vs. XLKQ.L - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Digital Assets Equity UCITS ETF A USD Acc (DAGB.L) has a higher volatility of 16.79% compared to Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc (XLKQ.L) at 6.83%. This indicates that DAGB.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XLKQ.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DAGB.L	XLKQ.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.79%	6.83%	+9.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	40.07%	14.29%	+25.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	57.84%	19.18%	+38.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	71.95%	22.04%	+49.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	71.78%	21.65%	+50.13%

DAGB.L vs. XLKQ.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

DAGB.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than XLKQ.L's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

DAGB.L vs. XLKQ.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither DAGB.L nor XLKQ.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DAGB.L and XLKQ.L in my portfolio?

DAGB.L and XLKQ.L have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, DAGB.L or XLKQ.L?

On fees, XLKQ.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, DAGB.L or XLKQ.L?

XLKQ.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for DAGB.L.

What is the main difference between DAGB.L and XLKQ.L?

DAGB.L tracks MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD, while XLKQ.L tracks S&P Select Sector Capped 20% Technology Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for DAGB.L and 0.14% for XLKQ.L.