PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EQSG.L vs. RUSG.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EQSG.L vs. RUSG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco Nasdaq-100 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (EQSG.L) and Lyxor Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (RUSG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period


EQSG.L

1D
-0.75%
1M
8.13%
YTD
19.91%
6M
17.66%
1Y
41.07%
3Y*
24.92%
5Y*
19.08%
10Y*

RUSG.L

1D
1M
YTD
6M
1Y
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EQSG.L vs. RUSG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
EQSG.L
Invesco Nasdaq-100 Swap UCITS ETF Acc
19.91%11.73%28.75%48.14%-25.92%32.20%
RUSG.L
Lyxor Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF
0.00%0.00%23.38%36.12%-22.36%33.20%

Correlation

The correlation between EQSG.L and RUSG.L is 0.67, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


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

0.41

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.66

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 26, 2021

0.67

The correlation between EQSG.L and RUSG.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.41 (3 years) to 0.67 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EQSG.L vs. RUSG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EQSG.L
RUSG.L

Technology

53.7%
49.3%

Communication Services

15.8%
14.0%

Consumer Cyclical

12.2%
14.8%

Consumer Defensive

7.7%
3.5%

Healthcare

4.2%
6.5%

Industrials

3.1%
3.5%

Utilities

1.4%
0.3%

Basic Materials

1.1%
0.6%

Energy

0.6%
0.4%

Financial Services

0.2%
6.7%

Real Estate

0.1%
0.5%

Technology

EQSG.L
53.7%
RUSG.L
49.3%

Communication Services

EQSG.L
15.8%
RUSG.L
14.0%

Consumer Cyclical

EQSG.L
12.2%
RUSG.L
14.8%

Consumer Defensive

EQSG.L
7.7%
RUSG.L
3.5%

Healthcare

EQSG.L
4.2%
RUSG.L
6.5%

Industrials

EQSG.L
3.1%
RUSG.L
3.5%

Utilities

EQSG.L
1.4%
RUSG.L
0.3%

Basic Materials

EQSG.L
1.1%
RUSG.L
0.6%

Energy

EQSG.L
0.6%
RUSG.L
0.4%

Financial Services

EQSG.L
0.2%
RUSG.L
6.7%

Real Estate

EQSG.L
0.1%
RUSG.L
0.5%

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

EQSG.L vs. RUSG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

EQSG.L
EQSG.L Risk / Return Rank: 3737
Overall Rank
EQSG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2727
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EQSG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3333
Sortino Ratio Rank
EQSG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7979
Omega Ratio Rank
EQSG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2828
Calmar Ratio Rank
EQSG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
Martin Ratio Rank

RUSG.L
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.

EQSG.L vs. RUSG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Nasdaq-100 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (EQSG.L) and Lyxor Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (RUSG.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.


EQSG.LRUSG.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.47

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.36

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.21

EQSG.L vs. RUSG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


EQSG.LRUSG.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.94

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.54

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.55

Drawdowns

EQSG.L vs. RUSG.L - Drawdown Comparison


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EQSG.LRUSG.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-31.87%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-30.73%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-31.87%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-31.87%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-10.55%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-13.16%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

18.86%

Volatility

EQSG.L vs. RUSG.L - Volatility Comparison


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EQSG.LRUSG.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.19%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.27%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

44.57%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

35.45%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

34.99%

EQSG.L vs. RUSG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EQSG.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than RUSG.L's 0.19% 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

EQSG.L vs. RUSG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither EQSG.L nor RUSG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


EQSG.L and RUSG.L have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, RUSG.L is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

RUSG.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for EQSG.L.

EQSG.L is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while RUSG.L is Large Cap Growth Equities. EQSG.L tracks Russell 1000 Growth TR USD, while RUSG.L tracks Russell 1000 Growth Net Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for EQSG.L and 0.19% for RUSG.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EQSG.L and RUSG.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