PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
MLPS.L vs. SGLP.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

MLPS.L vs. SGLP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF (MLPS.L) and Invesco Physical Gold A (SGLP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MLPS.L achieves a 19.52% return, which is significantly higher than SGLP.L's 3.00% return. Over the past 10 years, MLPS.L has underperformed SGLP.L with an annualized return of 7.33%, while SGLP.L has yielded a comparatively higher 13.40% annualized return.


MLPS.L

1D
1.18%
1M
0.77%
YTD
19.52%
6M
16.56%
1Y
16.47%
3Y*
19.21%
5Y*
17.43%
10Y*
7.33%

SGLP.L

1D
-1.43%
1M
-3.88%
YTD
3.00%
6M
4.94%
1Y
32.27%
3Y*
31.20%
5Y*
18.45%
10Y*
13.40%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
MLPS.L
Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF
19.52%2.44%22.62%19.38%31.92%36.78%-31.20%7.20%-14.89%-8.69%
SGLP.L
Invesco Physical Gold A
3.00%65.19%26.00%12.92%-0.12%-3.76%23.67%19.25%-1.60%11.32%

Correlation

The correlation between MLPS.L and SGLP.L is -0.06, 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

-0.06

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

0.06

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

0.09

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.05

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2013

0.06

The correlation between MLPS.L and SGLP.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.06 (1 year) to 0.09 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

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

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

MLPS.L
MLPS.L Risk / Return Rank: 3333
Overall Rank
MLPS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3232
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MLPS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3030
Sortino Ratio Rank
MLPS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2929
Omega Ratio Rank
MLPS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4040
Calmar Ratio Rank
MLPS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3333
Martin Ratio Rank

SGLP.L
SGLP.L Risk / Return Rank: 3838
Overall Rank
SGLP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4040
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SGLP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3535
Sortino Ratio Rank
SGLP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
SGLP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3737
Calmar Ratio Rank
SGLP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3333
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF (MLPS.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.


MLPS.LSGLP.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.17

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.15

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.20

1.25

-0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.94

1.81

+0.13

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.03

4.78

+0.25

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

The current MLPS.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.16, which is comparable to the SGLP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MLPS.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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


MLPS.LSGLP.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.16

1.33

-0.17

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.85

1.06

-0.21

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.26

0.85

-0.59

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.15

0.45

-0.30

Drawdowns

MLPS.L vs. SGLP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MLPS.L drawdown since its inception was -82.23%, which is greater than SGLP.L's maximum drawdown of -41.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MLPS.L and SGLP.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


MLPS.LSGLP.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-82.23%

-41.88%

-40.35%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.45%

-17.77%

+9.32%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.67%

-17.77%

+0.10%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.76%

-21.43%

-0.33%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-75.70%

-21.51%

-54.19%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.66%

-16.43%

+13.77%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-28.26%

-18.10%

-10.16%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.27%

6.73%

-3.46%

Volatility

MLPS.L vs. SGLP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Morningstar US Energy Infrastructure MLP UCITS ETF (MLPS.L) is 5.27%, while Invesco Physical Gold A (SGLP.L) has a volatility of 5.67%. This indicates that MLPS.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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


MLPS.LSGLP.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.27%

5.67%

-0.40%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.77%

20.86%

-10.09%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.14%

24.09%

-9.95%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.41%

17.40%

+3.01%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

28.54%

15.76%

+12.78%

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

MLPS.L has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than SGLP.L's 0.12% expense ratio.


Dividends

MLPS.L vs. SGLP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither MLPS.L nor SGLP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


MLPS.L and SGLP.L have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, SGLP.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

SGLP.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for MLPS.L.

MLPS.L is categorized as Energy Equities, while SGLP.L is Precious Metals. MLPS.L tracks MSCI World/Energy NR USD, while SGLP.L tracks Gold. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for MLPS.L and 0.12% for SGLP.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for MLPS.L and SGLP.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