FNCW.L vs. XLFQ.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

FNCW.L (SPDR MSCI World Financials UCITS ETF) and XLFQ.L (Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF) are both Financials Equities funds tracking the MSCI World/Financials NR USD, from State Street and Invesco respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FNCW.L returned 20.93%/yr vs 15.45%/yr for XLFQ.L. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FNCW.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for XLFQ.L.

Performance

FNCW.L vs. XLFQ.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in SPDR MSCI World Financials UCITS ETF (FNCW.L) and Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF (XLFQ.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

FNCW.L is traded in GBP, while XLFQ.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the XLFQ.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FNCW.L achieves a 0.43% return, which is significantly higher than XLFQ.L's -4.71% return.

FNCW.L

• 1D: 1.91%
• 1M: 2.90%
• YTD: 0.43%
• 6M: 3.68%
• 1Y: 15.52%
• 3Y*: 20.93%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

XLFQ.L

• 1D: 3.26%
• 1M: 2.31%
• YTD: -4.71%
• 6M: -2.62%
• 1Y: 4.63%
• 3Y*: 15.45%
• 5Y*: 9.10%
• 10Y*: 13.02%

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

FNCW.L vs. XLFQ.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FNCW.L SPDR MSCI World Financials UCITS ETF	0.43%	20.39%	28.76%	9.92%	-0.09%
XLFQ.L Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF	-4.71%	7.07%	32.15%	6.12%	-0.66%

Correlation

The correlation between FNCW.L and XLFQ.L is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 5, 2022	0.92

The correlation between FNCW.L and XLFQ.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

FNCW.L vs. XLFQ.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FNCW.L	XLFQ.L
Financial Services	98.2%	98.0%
Technology	1.3%	1.7%
Industrials	0.2%	0.2%
Real Estate	0.1%	-
Energy	0.1%	-
Healthcare	0.1%	-
Consumer Cyclical	0.1%	-
Utilities	0.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-

Return for Risk

FNCW.L vs. XLFQ.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

FNCW.L

FNCW.L Risk / Return Rank: 34
FNCW.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
FNCW.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
FNCW.L Omega Ratio Rank: 33
FNCW.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
FNCW.L Martin Ratio Rank: 35

XLFQ.L

XLFQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 14
XLFQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
XLFQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
XLFQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 13
XLFQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
XLFQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 13

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.

FNCW.L vs. XLFQ.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR MSCI World Financials UCITS ETF (FNCW.L) and Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF (XLFQ.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.

	FNCW.L	XLFQ.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.25	0.33	+0.91
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.80	0.57	+1.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.07	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.62	0.36	+1.26
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.15	0.84	+4.31
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FNCW.L vs. XLFQ.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FNCW.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is higher than the XLFQ.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FNCW.L and XLFQ.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

	FNCW.L	XLFQ.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.25	0.33	+0.91
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.52	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.65	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.92	0.64	+0.28

Drawdowns

FNCW.L vs. XLFQ.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FNCW.L drawdown since its inception was -16.31%, smaller than the maximum XLFQ.L drawdown of -35.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FNCW.L and XLFQ.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FNCW.L	XLFQ.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.31%	-35.39%	+19.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.55%	-12.81%	+3.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.31%	-19.01%	+2.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.01%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.13%	-6.62%	+5.49%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.76%	-5.65%	+1.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.00%	5.48%	-2.48%

Volatility

FNCW.L vs. XLFQ.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR MSCI World Financials UCITS ETF (FNCW.L) is 3.46%, while Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF (XLFQ.L) has a volatility of 4.46%. This indicates that FNCW.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XLFQ.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FNCW.L	XLFQ.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.46%	4.46%	-1.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.59%	10.48%	-0.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.41%	13.91%	-1.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.02%	17.52%	-2.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.02%	20.14%	-5.12%

FNCW.L vs. XLFQ.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

FNCW.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than XLFQ.L's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

FNCW.L vs. XLFQ.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither FNCW.L nor XLFQ.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FNCW.L and XLFQ.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, FNCW.L and XLFQ.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, FNCW.L or XLFQ.L?

On fees, XLFQ.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, FNCW.L or XLFQ.L?

XLFQ.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for FNCW.L.

What is the main difference between FNCW.L and XLFQ.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI World/Financials NR USD. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for FNCW.L and 0.14% for XLFQ.L.