IMSU.L vs. PQVG.L
IMSU.L (iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and PQVG.L (Invesco S&P 500 QVM UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IMSU.L is a Materials fund tracking the MSCI World/Materials NR USD, while PQVG.L is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Quality, Value, and Momentum Multi-Factor Index (Net Total Return). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IMSU.L returned 6.03%/yr vs 16.68%/yr for PQVG.L. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IMSU.L charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for PQVG.L.
Performance
IMSU.L vs. PQVG.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IMSU.L achieves a 12.66% return, which is significantly lower than PQVG.L's 16.79% return.
IMSU.L
- 1D
- -0.18%
- 1M
- -0.06%
- YTD
- 12.66%
- 6M
- 15.66%
- 1Y
- 19.61%
- 3Y*
- 8.18%
- 5Y*
- 6.03%
- 10Y*
- —
PQVG.L
- 1D
- 0.36%
- 1M
- 4.81%
- YTD
- 16.79%
- 6M
- 16.81%
- 1Y
- 24.59%
- 3Y*
- 21.17%
- 5Y*
- 16.68%
- 10Y*
- —
IMSU.L vs. PQVG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IMSU.L iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 12.66% | 3.37% | 0.69% | 6.26% | -1.35% | 28.63% | 16.34% | 19.09% | -10.83% | 12.85% |
PQVG.L Invesco S&P 500 QVM UCITS ETF | 16.79% | 5.84% | 32.29% | 0.98% | 12.54% | 27.78% | 4.44% | 21.16% | -1.98% | 14.30% |
Correlation
The correlation between IMSU.L and PQVG.L is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.48 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.57 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.66 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 24, 2017 | 0.71 |
Over the past year, the correlation between IMSU.L and PQVG.L has dropped to 0.48 - well below their long-term average of 0.71, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
IMSU.L vs. PQVG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
IMSU.L
PQVG.L
Basic Materials
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
Financial Services
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
-
Real Estate
-
-
Technology
-
Utilities
-
Basic Materials
IMSU.L
PQVG.L
Consumer Cyclical
IMSU.L
PQVG.L
Communication Services
IMSU.L
-
PQVG.L
Consumer Defensive
IMSU.L
-
PQVG.L
Energy
IMSU.L
-
PQVG.L
Financial Services
IMSU.L
-
PQVG.L
Healthcare
IMSU.L
-
PQVG.L
Industrials
IMSU.L
-
PQVG.L
Real Estate
IMSU.L
-
PQVG.L
-
Technology
IMSU.L
-
PQVG.L
Utilities
IMSU.L
-
PQVG.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
IMSU.L vs. PQVG.L — Risk / Return Rank
IMSU.L
PQVG.L
IMSU.L vs. PQVG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IMSU.L) and Invesco S&P 500 QVM UCITS ETF (PQVG.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.
| IMSU.L | PQVG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.99 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.38 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.23 | 1.41 | -0.18 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.79 | 5.82 | -4.03 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.00 | 17.49 | -11.49 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| IMSU.L | PQVG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.31 | 2.31 | -0.99 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.37 | 1.12 | -0.75 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.47 | 0.89 | -0.42 |
Drawdowns
IMSU.L vs. PQVG.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IMSU.L drawdown since its inception was -28.25%, which is greater than PQVG.L's maximum drawdown of -25.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMSU.L and PQVG.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IMSU.L | PQVG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -28.25% | -25.88% | -2.37% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.76% | -4.11% | -6.65% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -21.70% | -17.44% | -4.26% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -21.70% | -17.44% | -4.26% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.35% | 0.00% | -3.35% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.55% | -4.17% | -1.38% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.22% | 1.37% | +1.85% |
Volatility
IMSU.L vs. PQVG.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IMSU.L) has a higher volatility of 4.89% compared to Invesco S&P 500 QVM UCITS ETF (PQVG.L) at 2.79%. This indicates that IMSU.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PQVG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IMSU.L | PQVG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.89% | 2.79% | +2.10% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.86% | 7.88% | +3.98% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.68% | 10.37% | +4.31% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.33% | 14.89% | +1.44% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.46% | 16.24% | +2.22% |
IMSU.L vs. PQVG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
IMSU.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than PQVG.L's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
IMSU.L vs. PQVG.L - Dividend Comparison
IMSU.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PQVG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.77%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IMSU.L iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
PQVG.L Invesco S&P 500 QVM UCITS ETF | 0.77% | 0.82% | 0.82% | 1.61% | 1.77% | 0.87% | 1.59% | 1.41% | 1.30% | 0.72% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IMSU.L and PQVG.L have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IMSU.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IMSU.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for PQVG.L.
IMSU.L is categorized as Materials, while PQVG.L is S&P 500. IMSU.L tracks MSCI World/Materials NR USD, while PQVG.L tracks S&P 500 Quality, Value, and Momentum Multi-Factor Index (Net Total Return). They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for IMSU.L and 0.35% for PQVG.L.
Find the right allocation for IMSU.L and PQVG.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