PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RTYS.L vs. XLKQ.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RTYS.L vs. XLKQ.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Russell 2000 UCITS ETF (RTYS.L) and Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc (XLKQ.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RTYS.L achieves a 16.53% return, which is significantly lower than XLKQ.L's 27.51% return. Over the past 10 years, RTYS.L has underperformed XLKQ.L with an annualized return of 10.67%, while XLKQ.L has yielded a comparatively higher 26.77% annualized return.


RTYS.L

1D
-1.07%
1M
3.46%
YTD
16.53%
6M
16.96%
1Y
39.75%
3Y*
18.26%
5Y*
5.95%
10Y*
10.67%

XLKQ.L

1D
0.00%
1M
18.87%
YTD
27.51%
6M
26.93%
1Y
58.77%
3Y*
38.25%
5Y*
26.08%
10Y*
26.77%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RTYS.L vs. XLKQ.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RTYS.L
Invesco Russell 2000 UCITS ETF
16.53%12.51%10.09%18.90%-21.01%13.97%19.89%24.61%-12.53%14.83%
XLKQ.L
Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc
26.33%24.49%41.63%59.85%-29.07%35.05%42.15%50.99%-4.30%34.14%

Correlation

The correlation between RTYS.L and XLKQ.L is 0.57, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


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

0.57

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

0.51

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

0.60

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

0.58

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 9, 2014

0.58

The correlation between RTYS.L and XLKQ.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

RTYS.L vs. XLKQ.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RTYS.L
XLKQ.L

Industrials

17.7%
1.5%

Technology

17.0%
91.2%

Healthcare

16.5%

-

Financial Services

15.8%
7.3%

Consumer Cyclical

8.4%

-

Real Estate

6.1%

-

Energy

6.1%

-

Basic Materials

4.8%

-

Utilities

2.9%

-

Communication Services

2.4%

-

Consumer Defensive

2.4%

-

Industrials

RTYS.L
17.7%
XLKQ.L
1.5%

Technology

RTYS.L
17.0%
XLKQ.L
91.2%

Healthcare

RTYS.L
16.5%
XLKQ.L

-

Financial Services

RTYS.L
15.8%
XLKQ.L
7.3%

Consumer Cyclical

RTYS.L
8.4%
XLKQ.L

-

Real Estate

RTYS.L
6.1%
XLKQ.L

-

Energy

RTYS.L
6.1%
XLKQ.L

-

Basic Materials

RTYS.L
4.8%
XLKQ.L

-

Utilities

RTYS.L
2.9%
XLKQ.L

-

Communication Services

RTYS.L
2.4%
XLKQ.L

-

Consumer Defensive

RTYS.L
2.4%
XLKQ.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

RTYS.L vs. XLKQ.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

RTYS.L
RTYS.L Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
RTYS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6363
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RTYS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
RTYS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5858
Omega Ratio Rank
RTYS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
RTYS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
Martin Ratio Rank

XLKQ.L
XLKQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
XLKQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8989
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XLKQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
XLKQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
XLKQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6969
Calmar Ratio Rank
XLKQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5252
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.

RTYS.L vs. XLKQ.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Russell 2000 UCITS ETF (RTYS.L) and Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc (XLKQ.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.


RTYS.LXLKQ.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.88

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.85

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.49

-0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.74

3.48

+0.26

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.22

10.61

+1.61

RTYS.L vs. XLKQ.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RTYS.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.13, which is comparable to the XLKQ.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RTYS.L and XLKQ.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


RTYS.LXLKQ.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.13

3.01

-0.88

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.27

1.12

-0.86

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.48

1.27

-0.79

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.55

1.19

-0.64

Drawdowns

RTYS.L vs. XLKQ.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RTYS.L drawdown since its inception was -42.15%, which is greater than XLKQ.L's maximum drawdown of -35.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RTYS.L and XLKQ.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RTYS.LXLKQ.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-42.15%

-35.00%

-7.15%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.57%

-16.81%

+6.24%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-28.71%

-26.96%

-1.75%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-31.97%

-35.00%

+3.03%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.15%

-35.00%

-7.15%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.24%

0.00%

-1.24%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.15%

-5.75%

-3.40%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.24%

5.52%

-2.28%

Volatility

RTYS.L vs. XLKQ.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Russell 2000 UCITS ETF (RTYS.L) has a higher volatility of 6.29% compared to Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc (XLKQ.L) at 5.98%. This indicates that RTYS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XLKQ.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RTYS.LXLKQ.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.29%

5.98%

+0.31%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.46%

14.68%

-1.22%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.68%

19.52%

-0.84%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.27%

23.30%

-1.03%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.16%

22.21%

-0.05%

RTYS.L vs. XLKQ.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

RTYS.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than XLKQ.L's 0.14% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

RTYS.L vs. XLKQ.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither RTYS.L nor XLKQ.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


RTYS.L and XLKQ.L have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XLKQ.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XLKQ.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for RTYS.L.

RTYS.L is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while XLKQ.L is Technology Equities. RTYS.L tracks Russell 2000 TR USD, while XLKQ.L tracks S&P Select Sector Capped 20% Technology Index. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for RTYS.L and 0.14% for XLKQ.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RTYS.L and XLKQ.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