PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XLFQ.L vs. IUFS.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XLFQ.L vs. IUFS.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 500 Financials Sector UCITS ETF USD Acc (IUFS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with XLFQ.L having a -4.71% return and IUFS.L slightly higher at -4.67%. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with XLFQ.L having a 13.02% annualized return and IUFS.L not far ahead at 13.04%.


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%

IUFS.L

1D
3.18%
1M
2.14%
YTD
-4.67%
6M
-2.72%
1Y
4.53%
3Y*
15.54%
5Y*
9.11%
10Y*
13.04%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XLFQ.L
Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF
-4.71%7.07%32.15%6.12%-0.39%37.90%-6.56%27.16%-9.51%11.87%
IUFS.L
iShares S&P 500 Financials Sector UCITS ETF USD Acc
-4.67%6.85%32.50%6.52%-0.46%37.57%-6.17%26.22%-9.29%12.38%

Correlation

The correlation between XLFQ.L and IUFS.L is 0.95 - 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

0.95

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

0.95

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

0.94

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 XLFQ.L and IUFS.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

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


Sectors
XLFQ.L
IUFS.L

Financial Services

98.0%
98.0%

Technology

1.7%
1.7%

Industrials

0.2%
0.2%

Basic Materials

-

-

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Real Estate

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Financial Services

XLFQ.L
98.0%
IUFS.L
98.0%

Technology

XLFQ.L
1.7%
IUFS.L
1.7%

Industrials

XLFQ.L
0.2%
IUFS.L
0.2%

Basic Materials

XLFQ.L

-

IUFS.L

-

Communication Services

XLFQ.L

-

IUFS.L

-

Consumer Cyclical

XLFQ.L

-

IUFS.L

-

Consumer Defensive

XLFQ.L

-

IUFS.L

-

Energy

XLFQ.L

-

IUFS.L

-

Healthcare

XLFQ.L

-

IUFS.L

-

Real Estate

XLFQ.L

-

IUFS.L

-

Utilities

XLFQ.L

-

IUFS.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

XLFQ.L vs. IUFS.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: 1414
Overall Rank
XLFQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1414
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XLFQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1414
Sortino Ratio Rank
XLFQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1313
Omega Ratio Rank
XLFQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1313
Calmar Ratio Rank
XLFQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1313
Martin Ratio Rank

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

XLFQ.L vs. IUFS.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 500 Financials Sector UCITS ETF USD Acc (IUFS.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.LIUFS.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.03

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.04

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.07

1.06

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.36

0.34

+0.02

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.84

0.82

+0.02

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

The current XLFQ.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.33, which is comparable to the IUFS.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XLFQ.L and IUFS.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


XLFQ.LIUFS.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.33

0.30

+0.03

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

0.62

+0.02

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.64

0.59

+0.05

Drawdowns

XLFQ.L vs. IUFS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XLFQ.L drawdown since its inception was -35.39%, roughly equal to the maximum IUFS.L drawdown of -35.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XLFQ.L and IUFS.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XLFQ.LIUFS.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.39%

-35.96%

+0.57%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.81%

-13.28%

+0.47%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.01%

-18.90%

-0.11%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.01%

-18.90%

-0.11%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.39%

-35.96%

+0.57%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-6.62%

-6.64%

+0.02%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.65%

-6.09%

+0.44%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.48%

5.52%

-0.04%

Volatility

XLFQ.L vs. IUFS.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF (XLFQ.L) and iShares S&P 500 Financials Sector UCITS ETF USD Acc (IUFS.L) have volatilities of 4.46% and 4.58%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XLFQ.LIUFS.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.46%

4.58%

-0.12%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.48%

11.57%

-1.09%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.91%

15.11%

-1.20%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.52%

18.53%

-1.01%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.14%

20.96%

-0.82%

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

XLFQ.L has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than IUFS.L's 0.15% 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%.


Dividends

XLFQ.L vs. IUFS.L - Dividend Comparison

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.95, XLFQ.L and IUFS.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, XLFQ.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XLFQ.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for IUFS.L.

XLFQ.L tracks MSCI World/Financials NR USD, while IUFS.L tracks S&P 500 Capped 35/20 Financials Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for XLFQ.L and 0.15% for IUFS.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XLFQ.L and IUFS.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