EQJS.L vs. SGLP.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EQJS.L (Invesco Nasdaq Next Generation 100 UCITS ETF Acc) and SGLP.L (Invesco Physical Gold A) are both exchange-traded funds - EQJS.L is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Next Generation 100 Index, while SGLP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EQJS.L returned 8.68%/yr vs 19.70%/yr for SGLP.L. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EQJS.L charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for SGLP.L.

Performance

EQJS.L vs. SGLP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco Nasdaq Next Generation 100 UCITS ETF Acc (EQJS.L) and Invesco Physical Gold A (SGLP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EQJS.L achieves a 22.58% return, which is significantly higher than SGLP.L's 3.24% return.

EQJS.L

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 13.65%
• YTD: 22.58%
• 6M: 23.09%
• 1Y: 47.91%
• 3Y*: 19.20%
• 5Y*: 8.68%
• 10Y*: —

SGLP.L

• 1D: -1.17%
• 1M: -2.86%
• YTD: 3.24%
• 6M: 4.38%
• 1Y: 33.15%
• 3Y*: 27.94%
• 5Y*: 19.70%
• 10Y*: 14.29%

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

EQJS.L vs. SGLP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EQJS.L Invesco Nasdaq Next Generation 100 UCITS ETF Acc	22.58%	12.27%	16.78%	8.31%	-20.39%	10.77%
SGLP.L Invesco Physical Gold A	3.24%	53.60%	28.14%	7.26%	11.83%	7.24%

Correlation

The correlation between EQJS.L and SGLP.L is 0.16, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.16
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.08
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.03
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 29, 2021	0.03

The correlation between EQJS.L and SGLP.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.03 (5 years) to 0.16 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

EQJS.L vs. SGLP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

EQJS.L

EQJS.L Risk / Return Rank: 87
EQJS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
EQJS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
EQJS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 86
EQJS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
EQJS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 84

SGLP.L

SGLP.L Risk / Return Rank: 38
SGLP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
SGLP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
SGLP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 44
SGLP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
SGLP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 33

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.

EQJS.L vs. SGLP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Nasdaq Next Generation 100 UCITS ETF Acc (EQJS.L) and Invesco Physical Gold A (SGLP.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.

	EQJS.L	SGLP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.06	1.43	+1.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.12	1.87	+2.25
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.29	+0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.07	1.84	+3.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.34	5.03	+12.32
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EQJS.L vs. SGLP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EQJS.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.06, which is higher than the SGLP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EQJS.L and SGLP.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

	EQJS.L	SGLP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.06	1.43	+1.63
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.46	1.22	-0.77
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.91	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.45	0.53	-0.08

Drawdowns

EQJS.L vs. SGLP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EQJS.L drawdown since its inception was -32.10%, smaller than the maximum SGLP.L drawdown of -38.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EQJS.L and SGLP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	EQJS.L	SGLP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.10%	-38.83%	+6.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.40%	-17.89%	+8.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.83%	-17.89%	-6.94%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.10%	-17.89%	-14.21%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-22.34%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.36%	-16.55%	+16.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.46%	-13.37%	-0.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.75%	6.58%	-3.83%

Volatility

EQJS.L vs. SGLP.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Nasdaq Next Generation 100 UCITS ETF Acc (EQJS.L) has a higher volatility of 5.92% compared to Invesco Physical Gold A (SGLP.L) at 5.09%. This indicates that EQJS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SGLP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EQJS.L	SGLP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.92%	5.09%	+0.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.07%	19.90%	-7.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.65%	23.02%	-7.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.05%	16.11%	+2.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.23%	15.72%	+3.51%

EQJS.L vs. SGLP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EQJS.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than SGLP.L's 0.12% 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

EQJS.L vs. SGLP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither EQJS.L nor SGLP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EQJS.L and SGLP.L in my portfolio?

EQJS.L and SGLP.L have a correlation of 0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, EQJS.L or SGLP.L?

On fees, SGLP.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, EQJS.L or SGLP.L?

SGLP.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for EQJS.L.

What is the main difference between EQJS.L and SGLP.L?

EQJS.L is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while SGLP.L is Precious Metals. EQJS.L tracks Nasdaq Next Generation 100 Index, while SGLP.L tracks Gold. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for EQJS.L and 0.12% for SGLP.L.