FASE.L vs. SGLP.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

FASE.L (Invesco Markets II PLC - Invesco FTSE All Share Screened & Tilted UCITS ETF) and SGLP.L (Invesco Physical Gold A) are both exchange-traded funds - FASE.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the Invesco Markets II PLC - Invesco FTSE All Share Screened & Tilted UCITS ETF, while SGLP.L is a Gold fund tracking the Gold. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FASE.L returned 8.64%/yr vs 17.81%/yr for SGLP.L. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.12% expense ratio.

Performance

FASE.L vs. SGLP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco Markets II PLC - Invesco FTSE All Share Screened & Tilted UCITS ETF (FASE.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, FASE.L achieves a 5.03% return, which is significantly higher than SGLP.L's -6.33% return.

FASE.L

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: 2.11%
• 6M: 3.40%
• YTD: 5.03%
• 1Y: 15.43%
• 3Y*: 12.81%
• 5Y*: 8.64%
• 10Y*: —

SGLP.L

• 1D: -1.60%
• 1M: -7.47%
• 6M: -12.71%
• YTD: -6.33%
• 1Y: 20.56%
• 3Y*: 26.02%
• 5Y*: 17.81%
• 10Y*: 11.36%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FASE.L Invesco Markets II PLC - Invesco FTSE All Share Screened & Tilted UCITS ETF	5.03%	20.17%	9.31%	4.95%	-2.71%	15.34%
SGLP.L Invesco Physical Gold A	-6.33%	53.60%	28.14%	7.26%	11.83%	9.13%

Correlation

The correlation between FASE.L and SGLP.L is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.23
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.14
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.03
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 10, 2021	0.02

Over the past year, FASE.L and SGLP.L have become more correlated (0.23) than their long-term average of 0.02, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

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

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

FASE.L

FASE.L Risk / Return Rank: 39
FASE.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
FASE.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
FASE.L Omega Ratio Rank: 41
FASE.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
FASE.L Martin Ratio Rank: 36

SGLP.L

SGLP.L Risk / Return Rank: 26
SGLP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
SGLP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
SGLP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 30
SGLP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
SGLP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 22

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Markets II PLC - Invesco FTSE All Share Screened & Tilted UCITS ETF (FASE.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.

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.

	FASE.L	SGLP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.26	0.84	+0.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.81	1.21	+0.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.17	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.41	0.84	+0.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.40	2.08	+2.32

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

The current FASE.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.26, which is higher than the SGLP.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FASE.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.

Drawdowns

FASE.L vs. SGLP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FASE.L drawdown since its inception was -12.61%, smaller than the maximum SGLP.L drawdown of -63.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FASE.L and SGLP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FASE.L	SGLP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.61%	-63.75%	+51.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.89%	-24.29%	+13.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.20%	-24.29%	+12.09%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-12.61%	-24.29%	+11.68%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-24.29%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.70%	-24.29%	+22.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.94%	-31.67%	+28.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.50%	9.84%	-6.34%

Volatility

FASE.L vs. SGLP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Markets II PLC - Invesco FTSE All Share Screened & Tilted UCITS ETF (FASE.L) is 3.84%, while Invesco Physical Gold A (SGLP.L) has a volatility of 6.71%. This indicates that FASE.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SGLP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FASE.L	SGLP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.84%	6.71%	-2.87%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.95%	21.07%	-11.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.19%	24.32%	-12.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.07%	21.89%	-8.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.95%	18.29%	-5.34%

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

Both FASE.L and SGLP.L have an expense ratio of 0.12%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

FASE.L vs. SGLP.L - Dividend Comparison

FASE.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.71%, while SGLP.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FASE.L Invesco Markets II PLC - Invesco FTSE All Share Screened & Tilted UCITS ETF	2.71%	2.61%	3.72%	3.54%	3.47%	2.35%
SGLP.L Invesco Physical Gold A	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

FASE.L and SGLP.L have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

Both ETFs have the same 0.12% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

FASE.L and SGLP.L have the same expense ratio: 0.12% per year.

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

FASE.L is categorized as Global Equities, while SGLP.L is Gold. FASE.L tracks Invesco Markets II PLC - Invesco FTSE All Share Screened & Tilted UCITS ETF, while SGLP.L tracks Gold.