EQGB.L vs. XLVP.L

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

EQGB.L (Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc) and XLVP.L (Invesco US Health Care Sector UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EQGB.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while XLVP.L is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the MSCI World/Health Care NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EQGB.L returned 13.39%/yr vs 6.71%/yr for XLVP.L. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EQGB.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for XLVP.L.

Performance

EQGB.L vs. XLVP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) and Invesco US Health Care Sector UCITS ETF (XLVP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EQGB.L achieves a 11.82% return, which is significantly higher than XLVP.L's 5.31% return.

EQGB.L

• 1D: -2.31%
• 1M: -5.07%
• 6M: 11.25%
• YTD: 11.82%
• 1Y: 23.30%
• 3Y*: 22.04%
• 5Y*: 13.39%
• 10Y*: —

XLVP.L

• 1D: 0.75%
• 1M: 6.66%
• 6M: 4.08%
• YTD: 5.31%
• 1Y: 23.34%
• 3Y*: 7.50%
• 5Y*: 6.71%
• 10Y*: 9.46%

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

EQGB.L vs. XLVP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EQGB.L Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc	11.82%	19.59%	26.12%	53.92%	-35.07%	27.68%	45.43%	41.84%	-2.42%	5.20%
XLVP.L Invesco US Health Care Sector UCITS ETF	5.31%	6.91%	3.77%	-3.87%	8.97%	29.14%	8.22%	16.79%	10.28%	-0.24%

Correlation

The correlation between EQGB.L and XLVP.L is -0.13, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.13
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.03
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 17, 2017	0.31

The correlation between EQGB.L and XLVP.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.13 (1 year) to 0.31 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EQGB.L vs. XLVP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EQGB.L	XLVP.L
Technology	60.2%	-
Communication Services	12.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	6.3%	-
Healthcare	3.6%	100.0%
Industrials	3.6%	-
Utilities	1.1%	-
Basic Materials	1.1%	-
Energy	0.4%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	-
Real Estate	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

EQGB.L vs. XLVP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

EQGB.L

EQGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 48
EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
EQGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
EQGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 45
EQGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
EQGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 51

XLVP.L

XLVP.L Risk / Return Rank: 52
XLVP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
XLVP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
XLVP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 52
XLVP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
XLVP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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.

EQGB.L vs. XLVP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) and Invesco US Health Care Sector UCITS ETF (XLVP.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.

	EQGB.L	XLVP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.33	1.51	-0.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.94	2.29	-0.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.26	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.05	2.01	+0.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.78	5.01	+1.78

EQGB.L vs. XLVP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.33, which is comparable to the XLVP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EQGB.L and XLVP.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.

Drawdowns

EQGB.L vs. XLVP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EQGB.L drawdown since its inception was -36.77%, which is greater than XLVP.L's maximum drawdown of -19.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EQGB.L and XLVP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	EQGB.L	XLVP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.77%	-19.67%	-17.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.33%	-11.56%	+0.23%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.76%	-19.67%	-3.09%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-36.77%	-19.67%	-17.10%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-19.67%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.69%	-1.84%	-4.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.40%	-4.60%	-2.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.43%	4.65%	-1.22%

Volatility

EQGB.L vs. XLVP.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) has a higher volatility of 6.24% compared to Invesco US Health Care Sector UCITS ETF (XLVP.L) at 5.61%. This indicates that EQGB.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XLVP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EQGB.L	XLVP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.24%	5.61%	+0.63%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.94%	11.27%	+2.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.48%	15.36%	+2.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.22%	14.44%	+6.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.27%	15.68%	+5.59%

EQGB.L vs. XLVP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EQGB.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than XLVP.L's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

EQGB.L vs. XLVP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither EQGB.L nor XLVP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
EQGB.L Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	4.16%
XLVP.L Invesco US Health Care Sector UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EQGB.L and XLVP.L in my portfolio?

EQGB.L and XLVP.L have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, EQGB.L or XLVP.L?

On fees, XLVP.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, EQGB.L or XLVP.L?

XLVP.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for EQGB.L.

What is the main difference between EQGB.L and XLVP.L?

EQGB.L is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while XLVP.L is Health & Biotech Equities. EQGB.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while XLVP.L tracks MSCI World/Health Care NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for EQGB.L and 0.14% for XLVP.L.