ECOM.L vs. XLKQ.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

ECOM.L (L&G Ecommerce Logistics UCITS ETF) and XLKQ.L (Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc) are both Technology Equities funds - ECOM.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, ECOM.L returned 1.40%/yr vs 25.27%/yr for XLKQ.L. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ECOM.L charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for XLKQ.L.

Performance

ECOM.L vs. XLKQ.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in L&G Ecommerce Logistics UCITS ETF (ECOM.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

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ECOM.L achieves a -0.01% return, which is significantly lower than XLKQ.L's 23.50% return.

ECOM.L

• 1D: 1.18%
• 1M: 4.11%
• YTD: -0.01%
• 6M: 3.24%
• 1Y: 6.47%
• 3Y*: 8.92%
• 5Y*: 1.40%
• 10Y*: —

XLKQ.L

• 1D: -2.18%
• 1M: 13.44%
• YTD: 23.50%
• 6M: 23.21%
• 1Y: 53.05%
• 3Y*: 36.62%
• 5Y*: 25.27%
• 10Y*: 26.30%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
ECOM.L L&G Ecommerce Logistics UCITS ETF	-0.01%	11.07%	2.89%	21.80%	-21.59%	18.35%	43.47%	30.98%	-23.69%
XLKQ.L Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc	23.50%	24.49%	41.63%	59.85%	-29.07%	35.05%	42.15%	50.99%	-9.71%

Correlation

The correlation between ECOM.L and XLKQ.L is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.49
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 24, 2018	0.64

The correlation between ECOM.L and XLKQ.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.46 (1 year) to 0.64 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors	ECOM.L	XLKQ.L
Industrials	37.9%	1.5%
Consumer Cyclical	31.8%	-
Technology	16.2%	91.2%
Real Estate	7.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.3%	-
Financial Services	2.0%	7.3%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

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

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

ECOM.L

ECOM.L Risk / Return Rank: 15
ECOM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
ECOM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
ECOM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 14
ECOM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
ECOM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 15

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Ecommerce Logistics UCITS ETF (ECOM.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.

	ECOM.L	XLKQ.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.37	2.69	-2.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.65	3.52	-2.88
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.44	-0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.46	3.14	-2.68
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.25	9.57	-8.32
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current ECOM.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.37, which is lower than the XLKQ.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ECOM.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

	ECOM.L	XLKQ.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37	2.69	-2.32
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.07	1.09	-1.01
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	1.25	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.40	1.17	-0.77

Drawdowns

ECOM.L vs. XLKQ.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ECOM.L drawdown since its inception was -39.66%, which is greater than XLKQ.L's maximum drawdown of -35.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ECOM.L and XLKQ.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	ECOM.L	XLKQ.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.66%	-35.00%	-4.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.90%	-16.81%	+2.91%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.23%	-26.96%	+5.73%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.66%	-35.00%	-4.66%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.00%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.72%	-3.14%	-0.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.46%	-5.75%	-5.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.16%	5.53%	-0.37%

Volatility

ECOM.L vs. XLKQ.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for L&G Ecommerce Logistics UCITS ETF (ECOM.L) is 4.76%, while Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc (XLKQ.L) has a volatility of 6.83%. This indicates that ECOM.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XLKQ.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ECOM.L	XLKQ.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.76%	6.83%	-2.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.06%	14.92%	-1.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.45%	19.61%	-2.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.40%	23.32%	-3.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.10%	22.22%	-3.12%

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

ECOM.L has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than XLKQ.L's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

ECOM.L vs. XLKQ.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

ECOM.L and XLKQ.L have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

XLKQ.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for ECOM.L.

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

ECOM.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: Legal & General and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for ECOM.L and 0.14% for XLKQ.L.