PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XLIP.L vs. XLBS.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XLIP.L vs. XLBS.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco US Industrials Sector UCITS ETF (XLIP.L) and Invesco Materials S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc (XLBS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

XLIP.L is traded in GBp, while XLBS.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the XLBS.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 XLIP.L having a 12.73% return and XLBS.L slightly higher at 12.95%. Over the past 10 years, XLIP.L has outperformed XLBS.L with an annualized return of 14.13%, while XLBS.L has yielded a comparatively lower 10.67% annualized return.


XLIP.L

1D
-0.12%
1M
2.60%
YTD
12.73%
6M
13.06%
1Y
24.34%
3Y*
18.78%
5Y*
13.40%
10Y*
14.13%

XLBS.L

1D
-0.27%
1M
1.69%
YTD
12.95%
6M
15.79%
1Y
19.92%
3Y*
8.32%
5Y*
6.06%
10Y*
10.67%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XLIP.L vs. XLBS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XLIP.L
Invesco US Industrials Sector UCITS ETF
12.73%11.11%19.28%11.56%6.12%22.08%6.17%24.82%-9.41%9.57%
XLBS.L
Invesco Materials S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc
12.95%3.23%0.89%6.66%-1.62%28.22%16.54%18.82%-9.96%12.73%

Correlation

The correlation between XLIP.L and XLBS.L is 0.53, 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

0.53

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

0.64

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

0.70

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.74

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2014

0.74

Over the past year, the correlation between XLIP.L and XLBS.L has dropped to 0.53 - well below their long-term average of 0.74, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

XLIP.L vs. XLBS.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
XLIP.L
XLBS.L

Industrials

96.3%
1.6%

Technology

1.3%

-

Consumer Cyclical

1.3%
8.6%

Real Estate

1.1%

-

Basic Materials

-

89.8%

Communication Services

-

-

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Industrials

XLIP.L
96.3%
XLBS.L
1.6%

Technology

XLIP.L
1.3%
XLBS.L

-

Consumer Cyclical

XLIP.L
1.3%
XLBS.L
8.6%

Real Estate

XLIP.L
1.1%
XLBS.L

-

Basic Materials

XLIP.L

-

XLBS.L
89.8%

Communication Services

XLIP.L

-

XLBS.L

-

Consumer Defensive

XLIP.L

-

XLBS.L

-

Energy

XLIP.L

-

XLBS.L

-

Financial Services

XLIP.L

-

XLBS.L

-

Healthcare

XLIP.L

-

XLBS.L

-

Utilities

XLIP.L

-

XLBS.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

XLIP.L vs. XLBS.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XLIP.L
XLIP.L Risk / Return Rank: 5252
Overall Rank
XLIP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5555
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XLIP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5454
Sortino Ratio Rank
XLIP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5252
Omega Ratio Rank
XLIP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
XLIP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4949
Martin Ratio Rank

XLBS.L
XLBS.L Risk / Return Rank: 3232
Overall Rank
XLBS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3333
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XLBS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3232
Sortino Ratio Rank
XLBS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3030
Omega Ratio Rank
XLBS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3333
Calmar Ratio Rank
XLBS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3333
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.

XLIP.L vs. XLBS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco US Industrials Sector UCITS ETF (XLIP.L) and Invesco Materials S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc (XLBS.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.


XLIP.LXLBS.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.59

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.81

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.22

+0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.58

1.80

+0.79

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.25

6.29

+1.96

XLIP.L vs. XLBS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XLIP.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.83, which is higher than the XLBS.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XLIP.L and XLBS.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


XLIP.LXLBS.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.83

1.24

+0.59

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.84

0.35

+0.49

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.77

0.56

+0.21

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.77

0.58

+0.19

Drawdowns

XLIP.L vs. XLBS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XLIP.L drawdown since its inception was -34.56%, which is greater than XLBS.L's maximum drawdown of -29.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XLIP.L and XLBS.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XLIP.LXLBS.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.56%

-29.14%

-5.42%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.38%

-11.04%

+1.66%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.02%

-22.11%

+1.09%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.02%

-22.11%

+1.09%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.56%

-29.14%

-5.42%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.36%

-3.10%

+1.74%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.43%

-5.53%

+1.10%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.94%

3.16%

-0.22%

Volatility

XLIP.L vs. XLBS.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco US Industrials Sector UCITS ETF (XLIP.L) is 4.52%, while Invesco Materials S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc (XLBS.L) has a volatility of 5.78%. This indicates that XLIP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XLBS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XLIP.LXLBS.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.52%

5.78%

-1.26%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.31%

13.17%

-2.86%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.27%

16.06%

-2.79%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.91%

17.40%

-1.49%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.32%

18.92%

-0.60%

XLIP.L vs. XLBS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both XLIP.L and XLBS.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

XLIP.L vs. XLBS.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XLIP.L nor XLBS.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


XLIP.L and XLBS.L have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

XLIP.L and XLBS.L have the same expense ratio: 0.14% per year.

XLIP.L tracks MSCI World/Materials NR USD, while XLBS.L tracks S&P® Select Sector Capped 20% Materials Index.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XLIP.L and XLBS.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