SGLS.L vs. XLFS.L
SGLS.L (Invesco Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC) and XLFS.L (Invesco Financials S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - SGLS.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold (GBP Hedged), while XLFS.L is a Financials Equities fund tracking the S&P® Select Sector Capped 20% Financials Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, SGLS.L returned 17.34%/yr vs 9.11%/yr for XLFS.L. At a correlation of -0.07, they often move in opposite directions. SGLS.L charges 0.34%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for XLFS.L.
Performance
SGLS.L vs. XLFS.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
SGLS.L is traded in GBp, while XLFS.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the XLFS.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SGLS.L achieves a 3.01% return, which is significantly higher than XLFS.L's -4.53% 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*
- —
XLFS.L
- 1D
- 3.23%
- 1M
- 2.25%
- YTD
- -4.53%
- 6M
- -2.67%
- 1Y
- 4.66%
- 3Y*
- 15.52%
- 5Y*
- 9.11%
- 10Y*
- 13.02%
SGLS.L vs. XLFS.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% |
XLFS.L Invesco Financials S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc | -4.53% | 6.80% | 32.42% | 6.51% | -0.45% | 37.46% | 15.85% |
Correlation
The correlation between SGLS.L and XLFS.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 | -0.07 |
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
SGLS.L vs. XLFS.L — Risk / Return Rank
SGLS.L
XLFS.L
SGLS.L vs. XLFS.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 Financials S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc (XLFS.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 | XLFS.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.93 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.12 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.24 | 1.06 | +0.18 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.71 | 0.35 | +1.35 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.48 | 0.85 | +3.63 |
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
| SGLS.L | XLFS.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.24 | 0.31 | +0.93 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.07 | 0.49 | +0.58 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.63 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.90 | 0.61 | +0.29 |
Drawdowns
SGLS.L vs. XLFS.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SGLS.L drawdown since its inception was -21.94%, smaller than the maximum XLFS.L drawdown of -35.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SGLS.L and XLFS.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SGLS.L | XLFS.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.94% | -35.78% | +13.84% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -17.93% | -13.13% | -4.80% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.93% | -18.78% | +0.85% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -21.94% | -18.78% | -3.16% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -35.78% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -15.99% | -6.47% | -9.52% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.98% | -6.60% | -0.38% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.84% | 5.45% | +1.39% |
Volatility
SGLS.L vs. XLFS.L - Volatility Comparison
Invesco Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC (SGLS.L) has a higher volatility of 6.40% compared to Invesco Financials S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc (XLFS.L) at 4.68%. This indicates that SGLS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XLFS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SGLS.L | XLFS.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.40% | 4.68% | +1.72% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 21.65% | 11.44% | +10.21% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.68% | 14.92% | +9.76% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.91% | 18.54% | -0.63% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.29% | 20.81% | -2.52% |
SGLS.L vs. XLFS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
SGLS.L has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is higher than XLFS.L's 0.14% expense ratio.
Dividends
SGLS.L vs. XLFS.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither SGLS.L nor XLFS.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
SGLS.L and XLFS.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.
On fees, XLFS.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XLFS.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for SGLS.L.
SGLS.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while XLFS.L is Financials Equities. SGLS.L tracks Gold (GBP Hedged), while XLFS.L tracks S&P® Select Sector Capped 20% Financials Index. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for SGLS.L and 0.14% for XLFS.L.
Find the right allocation for SGLS.L and XLFS.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