XLCP.L vs. RUSG.L

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Invesco Communications S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF A (XLCP.L) and Lyxor Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (RUSG.L).

XLCP.L and RUSG.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. XLCP.L is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the MSCI World/Comm Services NR USD. It was launched on Sep 17, 2018. RUSG.L is a passively managed fund by Amundi that tracks the performance of the Russell 1000 Growth Net Index. It was launched on Oct 27, 2011. Both XLCP.L and RUSG.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

XLCP.L vs. RUSG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco Communications S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF A (XLCP.L) and Lyxor Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (RUSG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

XLCP.L vs. RUSG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
XLCP.L Invesco Communications S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF A	-1.83%	11.11%	40.05%	43.94%	-32.63%	15.05%	17.17%	27.75%	-8.58%
RUSG.L Lyxor Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	23.38%	36.12%	-22.36%	30.68%	34.09%	30.13%	-12.76%

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

XLCP.L

• 1D: 0.85%
• 1M: -3.73%
• YTD: -1.83%
• 6M: -2.24%
• 1Y: 12.55%
• 3Y*: 23.00%
• 5Y*: 9.71%
• 10Y*: —

RUSG.L

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XLCP.L vs. RUSG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XLCP.L has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than RUSG.L's 0.19% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

RUSG.L

Lyxor Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF

XLCP.L

Invesco Communications S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF A

Return for Risk

XLCP.L vs. RUSG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XLCP.L

XLCP.L Risk / Return Rank: 43
XLCP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
XLCP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
XLCP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 36
XLCP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
XLCP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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.

XLCP.L vs. RUSG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Communications S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF A (XLCP.L) and Lyxor Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (RUSG.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.

	XLCP.L	RUSG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.81	—	—
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.22	—	—
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	—	—
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.56	—	—
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.00	—	—
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	XLCP.L	RUSG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.81	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.55	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.64	—	—

Correlation

The correlation between XLCP.L and RUSG.L is 0.66, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

XLCP.L vs. RUSG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XLCP.L nor RUSG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	XLCP.L	RUSG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.47%	—	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.69%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.47%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.42%	—	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.61%	—	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.14%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	XLCP.L	RUSG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.02%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.29%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.43%	—	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.72%	—	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.66%	—	—