XLFQ.L vs. BNKS.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XLFQ.L (Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF) and BNKS.L (iShares S&P U.S. Banks) are both Financials Equities funds tracking the MSCI World/Financials NR USD, from Invesco and iShares respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XLFQ.L returned 9.10%/yr vs 5.90%/yr for BNKS.L. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XLFQ.L charges 0.14%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for BNKS.L.

Performance

XLFQ.L vs. BNKS.L - Performance Comparison

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

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XLFQ.L achieves a -4.71% return, which is significantly lower than BNKS.L's 4.03% return.

XLFQ.L

• 1D: 3.26%
• 1M: 2.31%
• YTD: -4.71%
• 6M: -2.62%
• 1Y: 4.63%
• 3Y*: 15.45%
• 5Y*: 9.10%
• 10Y*: 13.02%

BNKS.L

• 1D: 3.49%
• 1M: 1.92%
• YTD: 4.03%
• 6M: 6.76%
• 1Y: 29.13%
• 3Y*: 23.12%
• 5Y*: 5.90%
• 10Y*: —

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

XLFQ.L vs. BNKS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
XLFQ.L Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF	-4.71%	7.07%	32.15%	6.12%	-0.39%	37.90%	-6.56%	27.16%	-9.92%
BNKS.L iShares S&P U.S. Banks	4.03%	11.87%	30.79%	-8.55%	-9.13%	41.04%	-15.58%	31.42%	-20.06%

Correlation

The correlation between XLFQ.L and BNKS.L is 0.77, 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	0.77
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.71
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 24, 2018	0.80

The correlation between XLFQ.L and BNKS.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

XLFQ.L vs. BNKS.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XLFQ.L	BNKS.L
Financial Services	98.0%	100.0%
Technology	1.7%	-
Industrials	0.2%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

XLFQ.L vs. BNKS.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XLFQ.L

XLFQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 14
XLFQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
XLFQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
XLFQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 13
XLFQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
XLFQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 13

BNKS.L

BNKS.L Risk / Return Rank: 36
BNKS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
BNKS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
BNKS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 36
BNKS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
BNKS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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.

XLFQ.L vs. BNKS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF (XLFQ.L) and iShares S&P U.S. Banks (BNKS.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.

	XLFQ.L	BNKS.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.33	1.39	-1.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.57	1.93	-1.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.07	1.24	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.36	1.85	-1.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.84	5.43	-4.58
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XLFQ.L vs. BNKS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XLFQ.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.33, which is lower than the BNKS.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XLFQ.L and BNKS.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

	XLFQ.L	BNKS.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.33	1.39	-1.06
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.52	0.22	+0.30
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.65	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.64	0.20	+0.44

Drawdowns

XLFQ.L vs. BNKS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XLFQ.L drawdown since its inception was -35.39%, smaller than the maximum BNKS.L drawdown of -45.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XLFQ.L and BNKS.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XLFQ.L	BNKS.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.39%	-45.87%	+10.48%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.81%	-15.69%	+2.88%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.01%	-29.89%	+10.88%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.01%	-45.87%	+26.86%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.39%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.62%	-4.17%	-2.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.65%	-15.28%	+9.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.48%	5.36%	+0.12%

Volatility

XLFQ.L vs. BNKS.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF (XLFQ.L) is 4.46%, while iShares S&P U.S. Banks (BNKS.L) has a volatility of 6.01%. This indicates that XLFQ.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BNKS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XLFQ.L	BNKS.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.46%	6.01%	-1.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.48%	15.81%	-5.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.91%	20.89%	-6.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.52%	26.95%	-9.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.14%	30.65%	-10.51%

XLFQ.L vs. BNKS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XLFQ.L has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than BNKS.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

XLFQ.L vs. BNKS.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XLFQ.L nor BNKS.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XLFQ.L and BNKS.L in my portfolio?

XLFQ.L and BNKS.L have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, XLFQ.L or BNKS.L?

On fees, XLFQ.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, XLFQ.L or BNKS.L?

XLFQ.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for BNKS.L.

What is the main difference between XLFQ.L and BNKS.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI World/Financials NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for XLFQ.L and 0.35% for BNKS.L.