PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GCLX.L vs. MLPP.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GCLX.L vs. MLPP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF Acc (GCLX.L) and Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF (Dist) (MLPP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GCLX.L achieves a 36.06% return, which is significantly higher than MLPP.L's 19.02% return.


GCLX.L

1D
-0.90%
1M
3.33%
YTD
36.06%
6M
36.43%
1Y
88.67%
3Y*
5.24%
5Y*
-3.55%
10Y*

MLPP.L

1D
-0.55%
1M
0.89%
YTD
19.02%
6M
13.93%
1Y
16.92%
3Y*
15.77%
5Y*
18.55%
10Y*
3.95%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GCLX.L vs. MLPP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
GCLX.L
Invesco Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF Acc
36.06%32.48%-25.40%-15.38%-22.45%-19.67%
MLPP.L
Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF (Dist)
19.02%-4.63%24.36%13.33%47.48%15.81%

Correlation

The correlation between GCLX.L and MLPP.L is -0.05, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.05

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

0.18

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

0.24

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2021

0.23

The correlation between GCLX.L and MLPP.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.05 (1 year) to 0.24 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GCLX.L vs. MLPP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
GCLX.L
MLPP.L

Industrials

47.5%
0.2%

Utilities

16.1%
3.2%

Energy

13.6%
96.7%

Consumer Cyclical

10.2%

-

Technology

6.8%

-

Basic Materials

3.4%

-

Consumer Defensive

0.9%

-

Financial Services

0.9%

-

Communication Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Industrials

GCLX.L
47.5%
MLPP.L
0.2%

Utilities

GCLX.L
16.1%
MLPP.L
3.2%

Energy

GCLX.L
13.6%
MLPP.L
96.7%

Consumer Cyclical

GCLX.L
10.2%
MLPP.L

-

Technology

GCLX.L
6.8%
MLPP.L

-

Basic Materials

GCLX.L
3.4%
MLPP.L

-

Consumer Defensive

GCLX.L
0.9%
MLPP.L

-

Financial Services

GCLX.L
0.9%
MLPP.L

-

Communication Services

GCLX.L

-

MLPP.L

-

Healthcare

GCLX.L

-

MLPP.L

-

Real Estate

GCLX.L

-

MLPP.L

-

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

GCLX.L vs. MLPP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

GCLX.L
GCLX.L Risk / Return Rank: 9595
Overall Rank
GCLX.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9696
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GCLX.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9595
Sortino Ratio Rank
GCLX.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9494
Omega Ratio Rank
GCLX.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9595
Calmar Ratio Rank
GCLX.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9494
Martin Ratio Rank

MLPP.L
MLPP.L Risk / Return Rank: 3131
Overall Rank
MLPP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2929
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MLPP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2727
Sortino Ratio Rank
MLPP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2828
Omega Ratio Rank
MLPP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3939
Calmar Ratio Rank
MLPP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3030
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

GCLX.L vs. MLPP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF Acc (GCLX.L) and Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF (Dist) (MLPP.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.


GCLX.LMLPP.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+3.17

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+3.50

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.67

1.18

+0.48

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

8.26

1.87

+6.39

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

27.52

4.35

+23.17

GCLX.L vs. MLPP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GCLX.L Sharpe Ratio is 4.21, which is higher than the MLPP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GCLX.L and MLPP.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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


GCLX.LMLPP.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.21

1.04

+3.17

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.14

1.00

-1.14

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.15

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.24

-0.00

-0.24

Drawdowns

GCLX.L vs. MLPP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GCLX.L drawdown since its inception was -69.45%, smaller than the maximum MLPP.L drawdown of -84.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GCLX.L and MLPP.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GCLX.LMLPP.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-69.45%

-84.51%

+15.06%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.67%

-8.99%

-1.68%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-52.84%

-19.03%

-33.81%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-68.40%

-19.03%

-49.37%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-80.34%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-29.12%

-7.30%

-21.82%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-40.37%

-36.25%

-4.12%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.21%

3.88%

-0.67%

Volatility

GCLX.L vs. MLPP.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF Acc (GCLX.L) has a higher volatility of 8.47% compared to Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF (Dist) (MLPP.L) at 6.47%. This indicates that GCLX.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MLPP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GCLX.LMLPP.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.47%

6.47%

+2.00%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.49%

12.89%

+1.60%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.98%

16.25%

+4.73%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

25.59%

20.82%

+4.77%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

26.20%

32.00%

-5.80%

GCLX.L vs. MLPP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

GCLX.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than MLPP.L's 0.50% expense ratio.


Dividends

GCLX.L vs. MLPP.L - Dividend Comparison

GCLX.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while MLPP.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.55%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
GCLX.L
Invesco Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF Acc
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.01%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
MLPP.L
Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF (Dist)
7.55%8.28%7.99%8.81%7.86%8.40%6.01%0.13%0.13%0.11%0.10%0.15%

Frequently Asked Questions


GCLX.L and MLPP.L have a correlation of -0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, MLPP.L is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

MLPP.L is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for GCLX.L.

GCLX.L tracks S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD, while MLPP.L tracks MSCI World/Energy NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for GCLX.L and 0.50% for MLPP.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GCLX.L and MLPP.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