SGLS.L vs. PQVG.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

SGLS.L (Invesco Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC) and PQVG.L (Invesco S&P 500 QVM UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SGLS.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold (GBP Hedged), 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, SGLS.L returned 17.34%/yr vs 16.68%/yr for PQVG.L. At a correlation of -0.06, they often move in opposite directions. SGLS.L charges 0.34%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for PQVG.L.

Performance

SGLS.L vs. PQVG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC (SGLS.L) and Invesco S&P 500 QVM UCITS ETF (PQVG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SGLS.L achieves a 3.01% return, which is significantly lower than PQVG.L's 16.79% return.

SGLS.L

• 1D: 0.62%
• 1M: -2.49%
• YTD: 3.01%
• 6M: 5.20%
• 1Y: 30.77%
• 3Y*: 29.59%
• 5Y*: 17.34%
• 10Y*: —

PQVG.L

• 1D: 0.36%
• 1M: 5.36%
• YTD: 16.79%
• 6M: 17.07%
• 1Y: 24.01%
• 3Y*: 21.17%
• 5Y*: 16.68%
• 10Y*: —

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

SGLS.L vs. PQVG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
SGLS.L Invesco Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC	3.01%	64.22%	24.42%	11.48%	-1.42%	-4.63%	-3.17%
PQVG.L Invesco S&P 500 QVM UCITS ETF	16.79%	5.84%	32.29%	0.98%	12.54%	27.78%	4.97%

Correlation

The correlation between SGLS.L and PQVG.L is 0.01, 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	0.01
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.07
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 29, 2020	-0.06

Return for Risk

SGLS.L vs. PQVG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

SGLS.L

SGLS.L Risk / Return Rank: 34
SGLS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
SGLS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
SGLS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 37
SGLS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
SGLS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 31

PQVG.L

PQVG.L Risk / Return Rank: 78
PQVG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
PQVG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
PQVG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 69
PQVG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
PQVG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

SGLS.L vs. PQVG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC (SGLS.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.

	SGLS.L	PQVG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.24	2.31	-1.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.66	3.28	-1.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.41	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.71	5.82	-4.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.48	17.49	-13.01
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SGLS.L vs. PQVG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SGLS.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.24, which is lower than the PQVG.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SGLS.L and PQVG.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

	SGLS.L	PQVG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.24	2.31	-1.06
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.07	1.12	-0.05
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.90	0.89	+0.01

Drawdowns

SGLS.L vs. PQVG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SGLS.L drawdown since its inception was -21.94%, smaller than the maximum PQVG.L drawdown of -25.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SGLS.L and PQVG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	SGLS.L	PQVG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.94%	-25.88%	+3.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.93%	-4.11%	-13.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.93%	-17.44%	-0.49%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.94%	-17.44%	-4.50%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.99%	0.00%	-15.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.98%	-4.17%	-2.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.84%	1.37%	+5.47%

Volatility

SGLS.L vs. PQVG.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC (SGLS.L) has a higher volatility of 6.40% compared to Invesco S&P 500 QVM UCITS ETF (PQVG.L) at 2.79%. This indicates that SGLS.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.

Volatility by Period

	SGLS.L	PQVG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.40%	2.79%	+3.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.65%	7.88%	+13.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.68%	10.37%	+14.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.91%	14.89%	+3.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.29%	16.24%	+2.05%

SGLS.L vs. PQVG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

SGLS.L has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is lower than PQVG.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

SGLS.L vs. PQVG.L - Dividend Comparison

SGLS.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
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%
SGLS.L Invesco Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SGLS.L and PQVG.L in my portfolio?

SGLS.L and PQVG.L have a correlation of 0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, SGLS.L or PQVG.L?

On fees, SGLS.L is cheaper at 0.34% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, SGLS.L or PQVG.L?

SGLS.L is cheaper with a 0.34% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for PQVG.L.

What is the main difference between SGLS.L and PQVG.L?

SGLS.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while PQVG.L is S&P 500. SGLS.L tracks Gold (GBP Hedged), while PQVG.L tracks S&P 500 Quality, Value, and Momentum Multi-Factor Index (Net Total Return). Their fees differ too: 0.34% for SGLS.L and 0.35% for PQVG.L.