PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XLKQ.L vs. FOGB.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XLKQ.L vs. FOGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc (XLKQ.L) and Rize Sustainable Future of Food UCITS ETF A USD (FOGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XLKQ.L achieves a 17.29% return, which is significantly higher than FOGB.L's 3.33% return.


XLKQ.L

1D
-1.59%
1M
-3.44%
6M
19.70%
YTD
17.29%
1Y
31.37%
3Y*
30.04%
5Y*
22.68%
10Y*
25.10%

FOGB.L

1D
-0.47%
1M
0.62%
6M
-1.77%
YTD
3.33%
1Y
-4.66%
3Y*
-5.08%
5Y*
-8.73%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XLKQ.L vs. FOGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
XLKQ.L
Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc
17.29%15.76%44.03%51.84%-20.58%36.28%1.07%
FOGB.L
Rize Sustainable Future of Food UCITS ETF A USD
3.33%-9.49%-5.72%-6.98%-18.26%2.56%9.19%

Correlation

The correlation between XLKQ.L and FOGB.L is 0.10, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.10

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

0.19

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

0.38

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 3, 2020

0.41

Over the past year, the correlation between XLKQ.L and FOGB.L has dropped to 0.10 - well below their long-term average of 0.41, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

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

XLKQ.L vs. FOGB.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XLKQ.L
XLKQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 4747
Overall Rank
XLKQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5353
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XLKQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5151
Sortino Ratio Rank
XLKQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4848
Omega Ratio Rank
XLKQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4545
Calmar Ratio Rank
XLKQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3737
Martin Ratio Rank

FOGB.L
FOGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 77
Overall Rank
FOGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FOGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
Sortino Ratio Rank
FOGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 77
Omega Ratio Rank
FOGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
Calmar Ratio Rank
FOGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 77
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.

XLKQ.L vs. FOGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc (XLKQ.L) and Rize Sustainable Future of Food UCITS ETF A USD (FOGB.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.


XLKQ.LFOGB.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.69

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+2.23

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.25

0.98

+0.28

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.86

-0.25

+2.11

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.56

-0.41

+4.97

XLKQ.L vs. FOGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XLKQ.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.48, which is higher than the FOGB.L Sharpe Ratio of -0.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XLKQ.L and FOGB.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...

Drawdowns

XLKQ.L vs. FOGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XLKQ.L drawdown since its inception was -38.43%, smaller than the maximum FOGB.L drawdown of -43.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XLKQ.L and FOGB.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XLKQ.LFOGB.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-38.43%

-43.46%

+5.03%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.76%

-12.73%

-4.03%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-28.74%

-23.44%

-5.30%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.74%

-43.46%

+14.72%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-28.74%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-7.95%

-38.99%

+31.04%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.06%

-24.51%

+16.45%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.87%

7.79%

-0.92%

Volatility

XLKQ.L vs. FOGB.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc (XLKQ.L) has a higher volatility of 7.47% compared to Rize Sustainable Future of Food UCITS ETF A USD (FOGB.L) at 4.25%. This indicates that XLKQ.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FOGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XLKQ.LFOGB.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.47%

4.25%

+3.22%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.46%

11.01%

+5.45%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

21.19%

15.10%

+6.09%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

26.43%

15.83%

+10.60%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.45%

15.43%

+8.02%

XLKQ.L vs. FOGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XLKQ.L has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than FOGB.L's 0.45% expense ratio.


Dividends

XLKQ.L vs. FOGB.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XLKQ.L nor FOGB.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


XLKQ.L and FOGB.L have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

XLKQ.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for FOGB.L.

XLKQ.L tracks S&P Select Sector Capped 20% Technology Index, while FOGB.L tracks Rize Sustainable Future of Food UCITS ETF A USD. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Rize ETF. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for XLKQ.L and 0.45% for FOGB.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XLKQ.L and FOGB.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