PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
UIFS.L vs. XLFS.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

UIFS.L vs. XLFS.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares S&P 500 Financials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (UIFS.L) and Invesco Financials S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc (XLFS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

UIFS.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, UIFS.L achieves a -4.82% return, which is significantly lower than XLFS.L's -4.53% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with UIFS.L having a 13.04% annualized return and XLFS.L not far behind at 13.02%.


UIFS.L

1D
3.20%
1M
2.23%
YTD
-4.82%
6M
-2.63%
1Y
4.61%
3Y*
15.44%
5Y*
9.10%
10Y*
13.04%

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

UIFS.L vs. XLFS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
UIFS.L
iShares S&P 500 Financials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
-4.82%7.07%32.24%6.12%-0.45%38.07%-6.59%27.05%-9.40%12.02%
XLFS.L
Invesco Financials S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc
-4.53%6.80%32.42%6.51%-0.45%37.46%-7.35%27.94%-9.37%12.24%

Correlation

The correlation between UIFS.L and XLFS.L is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.


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

0.96

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

0.95

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

0.95

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

0.95

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 24, 2015

0.95

The correlation between UIFS.L and XLFS.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

UIFS.L vs. XLFS.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
UIFS.L
XLFS.L

Financial Services

98.1%
98.4%

Technology

1.7%
1.6%

Industrials

0.2%
0.2%

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Financial Services

UIFS.L
98.1%
XLFS.L
98.4%

Technology

UIFS.L
1.7%
XLFS.L
1.6%

Industrials

UIFS.L
0.2%
XLFS.L
0.2%

Basic Materials

UIFS.L

-

XLFS.L

-

Communication Services

UIFS.L

-

XLFS.L

-

Consumer Cyclical

UIFS.L

-

XLFS.L

-

Consumer Defensive

UIFS.L

-

XLFS.L

-

Energy

UIFS.L

-

XLFS.L

-

Healthcare

UIFS.L

-

XLFS.L

-

Real Estate

UIFS.L

-

XLFS.L

-

Utilities

UIFS.L

-

XLFS.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

UIFS.L vs. XLFS.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

UIFS.L
UIFS.L Risk / Return Rank: 1414
Overall Rank
UIFS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1515
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UIFS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1414
Sortino Ratio Rank
UIFS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1414
Omega Ratio Rank
UIFS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1414
Calmar Ratio Rank
UIFS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1313
Martin Ratio Rank

XLFS.L
XLFS.L Risk / Return Rank: 1212
Overall Rank
XLFS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1313
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XLFS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1212
Sortino Ratio Rank
XLFS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1212
Omega Ratio Rank
XLFS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1212
Calmar Ratio Rank
XLFS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1212
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.

UIFS.L vs. XLFS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P 500 Financials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (UIFS.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.


UIFS.LXLFS.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.02

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.02

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.07

1.06

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.36

0.35

0.00

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.83

0.85

-0.02

UIFS.L vs. XLFS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UIFS.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.33, which is comparable to the XLFS.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UIFS.L and XLFS.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


UIFS.LXLFS.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.33

0.31

+0.02

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.52

0.49

+0.03

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.65

0.63

+0.02

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.62

0.61

+0.01

Drawdowns

UIFS.L vs. XLFS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UIFS.L drawdown since its inception was -35.31%, roughly equal to the maximum XLFS.L drawdown of -35.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UIFS.L and XLFS.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


UIFS.LXLFS.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.31%

-35.78%

+0.47%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.90%

-13.13%

+0.23%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.72%

-18.78%

+0.06%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.72%

-18.78%

+0.06%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.31%

-35.78%

+0.47%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-6.76%

-6.47%

-0.29%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.08%

-6.60%

+0.52%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.53%

5.45%

+0.08%

Volatility

UIFS.L vs. XLFS.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares S&P 500 Financials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (UIFS.L) is 4.41%, while Invesco Financials S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc (XLFS.L) has a volatility of 4.68%. This indicates that UIFS.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XLFS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


UIFS.LXLFS.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.41%

4.68%

-0.27%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.58%

11.44%

-0.86%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.98%

14.92%

-0.94%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.54%

18.54%

-1.00%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.12%

20.81%

-0.69%

UIFS.L vs. XLFS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

UIFS.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than XLFS.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

UIFS.L vs. XLFS.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither UIFS.L nor XLFS.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.96, UIFS.L and XLFS.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

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 0.15% for UIFS.L.

UIFS.L tracks S&P 500 Capped 35/20 Financials Index, while XLFS.L tracks S&P® Select Sector Capped 20% Financials Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for UIFS.L and 0.14% for XLFS.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for UIFS.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