XLFQ.L vs. XLFS.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XLFQ.L (Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF) and XLFS.L (Invesco Financials S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc) are both Financials Equities funds from Invesco - XLFQ.L tracks the MSCI World/Financials NR USD while XLFS.L tracks the S&P® Select Sector Capped 20% Financials Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XLFQ.L returned 13.02%/yr vs 13.02%/yr for XLFS.L. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.14% expense ratio.

Performance

XLFQ.L vs. XLFS.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 Invesco Financials S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc (XLFS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

XLFQ.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

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with XLFQ.L having a -4.71% return and XLFS.L slightly higher at -4.53%. Over a longer period, both investments have demonstrated similar performance, with their 10-year annualized returns being quite close: XLFQ.L at 13.02% and XLFS.L at 13.02%.

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%

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)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%
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 XLFQ.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 Jun 27, 2013	0.95

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

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

Sectors	XLFQ.L	XLFS.L
Financial Services	98.0%	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	-	-

Return for Risk

XLFQ.L vs. XLFS.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

XLFS.L

XLFS.L Risk / Return Rank: 12
XLFS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
XLFS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
XLFS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 12
XLFS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
XLFS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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. XLFS.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 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.

	XLFQ.L	XLFS.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.33	0.31	+0.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.57	0.54	+0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.07	1.06	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.36	0.35	+0.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.84	0.85	-0.01
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. XLFS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XLFQ.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 XLFQ.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	XLFQ.L	XLFS.L	Difference
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	0.64	0.61	+0.03

Drawdowns

XLFQ.L vs. XLFS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XLFQ.L drawdown since its inception was -35.39%, roughly equal to the maximum XLFS.L drawdown of -35.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XLFQ.L and XLFS.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XLFQ.L	XLFS.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.39%	-35.78%	+0.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.81%	-13.13%	+0.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.01%	-18.78%	-0.23%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.01%	-18.78%	-0.23%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.39%	-35.78%	+0.39%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.62%	-6.47%	-0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.65%	-6.60%	+0.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.48%	5.45%	+0.03%

Volatility

XLFQ.L vs. XLFS.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF (XLFQ.L) and Invesco Financials S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc (XLFS.L) have volatilities of 4.46% and 4.68%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	XLFQ.L	XLFS.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.46%	4.68%	-0.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.48%	11.44%	-0.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.91%	14.92%	-1.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.52%	18.54%	-1.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.14%	20.81%	-0.67%

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

Both XLFQ.L and XLFS.L have an expense ratio of 0.14%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

XLFQ.L vs. XLFS.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.96, XLFQ.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.

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

Both ETFs have the same 0.14% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

XLFQ.L and XLFS.L have the same expense ratio: 0.14% per year.

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

XLFQ.L tracks MSCI World/Financials NR USD, while XLFS.L tracks S&P® Select Sector Capped 20% Financials Index.