USML.L vs. EQGB.L
USML.L (Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 UCITS ETF A) and EQGB.L (Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - USML.L is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 TR USD, while EQGB.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, USML.L returned 5.94%/yr vs 15.13%/yr for EQGB.L. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. USML.L charges 0.14%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for EQGB.L.
Performance
USML.L vs. EQGB.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
USML.L is traded in USD, while EQGB.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the EQGB.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, USML.L achieves a 15.40% return, which is significantly lower than EQGB.L's 18.57% return.
USML.L
- 1D
- 1.05%
- 1M
- 1.79%
- YTD
- 15.40%
- 6M
- 15.62%
- 1Y
- 33.26%
- 3Y*
- 15.56%
- 5Y*
- 5.94%
- 10Y*
- —
EQGB.L
- 1D
- -0.66%
- 1M
- 7.50%
- YTD
- 18.57%
- 6M
- 19.28%
- 1Y
- 37.80%
- 3Y*
- 30.52%
- 5Y*
- 15.13%
- 10Y*
- —
USML.L vs. EQGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USML.L Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 UCITS ETF A | 15.40% | 6.56% | 7.78% | 17.52% | -15.95% | 26.49% | 11.11% | 5.73% |
EQGB.L Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc | 18.57% | 28.61% | 24.02% | 62.04% | -42.01% | 26.53% | 49.89% | 24.63% |
Correlation
The correlation between USML.L and EQGB.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 | 0.57 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.64 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 19, 2019 | 0.61 |
The correlation between USML.L and EQGB.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.
USML.L vs. EQGB.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
USML.L
EQGB.L
Financial Services
Industrials
Technology
Consumer Cyclical
Healthcare
Real Estate
Energy
Basic Materials
Communication Services
Consumer Defensive
Utilities
Financial Services
USML.L
EQGB.L
Industrials
USML.L
EQGB.L
Technology
USML.L
EQGB.L
Consumer Cyclical
USML.L
EQGB.L
Healthcare
USML.L
EQGB.L
Real Estate
USML.L
EQGB.L
Energy
USML.L
EQGB.L
Basic Materials
USML.L
EQGB.L
Communication Services
USML.L
EQGB.L
Consumer Defensive
USML.L
EQGB.L
Utilities
USML.L
EQGB.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
USML.L vs. EQGB.L — Risk / Return Rank
USML.L
EQGB.L
USML.L vs. EQGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 UCITS ETF A (USML.L) and Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.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.
| USML.L | EQGB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.09 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.01 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | 1.34 | 0.00 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.82 | 2.52 | +1.30 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.96 | 9.34 | +2.62 |
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
| USML.L | EQGB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.95 | 2.05 | -0.09 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.28 | 0.61 | -0.33 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.40 | 0.79 | -0.39 |
Drawdowns
USML.L vs. EQGB.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum USML.L drawdown since its inception was -42.69%, smaller than the maximum EQGB.L drawdown of -47.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for USML.L and EQGB.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| USML.L | EQGB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -42.69% | -47.56% | +4.87% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.67% | -14.96% | +6.29% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -29.02% | -22.21% | -6.81% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -29.02% | -47.56% | +18.54% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -1.12% | +1.12% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.90% | -9.54% | -0.36% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.77% | 4.03% | -1.26% |
Volatility
USML.L vs. EQGB.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 UCITS ETF A (USML.L) is 4.88%, while Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) has a volatility of 5.53%. This indicates that USML.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EQGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| USML.L | EQGB.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.88% | 5.53% | -0.65% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.53% | 13.97% | -2.44% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.94% | 18.40% | -1.46% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.17% | 24.75% | -3.58% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.82% | 24.79% | -0.97% |
USML.L vs. EQGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
USML.L has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than EQGB.L's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
USML.L vs. EQGB.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither USML.L nor EQGB.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EQGB.L Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.04% |
USML.L Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 UCITS ETF A | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
USML.L and EQGB.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, USML.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
USML.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for EQGB.L.
USML.L is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while EQGB.L is Nasdaq-100. USML.L tracks Russell 2000 TR USD, while EQGB.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for USML.L and 0.35% for EQGB.L.
Find the right allocation for USML.L and EQGB.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