PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XLYP.L vs. SGLS.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XLYP.L vs. SGLS.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco US Consumer Discretionary Sector UCITS ETF (XLYP.L) and Invesco Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC (SGLS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XLYP.L achieves a -2.69% return, which is significantly lower than SGLS.L's 3.01% return.


XLYP.L

1D
0.33%
1M
-0.12%
YTD
-2.69%
6M
-2.73%
1Y
11.03%
3Y*
12.55%
5Y*
9.67%
10Y*
13.68%

SGLS.L

1D
0.62%
1M
-4.85%
YTD
3.01%
6M
5.19%
1Y
31.26%
3Y*
29.59%
5Y*
17.34%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XLYP.L vs. SGLS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
XLYP.L
Invesco US Consumer Discretionary Sector UCITS ETF
-2.69%0.23%30.67%32.31%-26.14%30.65%12.61%
SGLS.L
Invesco Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC
3.01%64.22%24.42%11.48%-1.42%-4.63%-3.17%

Correlation

The correlation between XLYP.L and SGLS.L is 0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.


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

0.06

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

-0.07

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

-0.07

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 29, 2020

-0.06

The correlation between XLYP.L and SGLS.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.07 (5 years) to 0.06 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

XLYP.L vs. SGLS.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XLYP.L
XLYP.L Risk / Return Rank: 2020
Overall Rank
XLYP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2121
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XLYP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2121
Sortino Ratio Rank
XLYP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2020
Omega Ratio Rank
XLYP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
XLYP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
Martin Ratio Rank

SGLS.L
SGLS.L Risk / Return Rank: 3434
Overall Rank
SGLS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3636
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SGLS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3232
Sortino Ratio Rank
SGLS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3737
Omega Ratio Rank
SGLS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3535
Calmar Ratio Rank
SGLS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3131
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.

XLYP.L vs. SGLS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco US Consumer Discretionary Sector UCITS ETF (XLYP.L) and Invesco Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC (SGLS.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.


XLYP.LSGLS.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.57

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.61

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.12

1.24

-0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.84

1.71

-0.87

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.32

4.48

-2.17

XLYP.L vs. SGLS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XLYP.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.68, which is lower than the SGLS.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XLYP.L and SGLS.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


XLYP.LSGLS.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.68

1.24

-0.57

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.47

1.07

-0.60

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.69

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.75

0.90

-0.14

Drawdowns

XLYP.L vs. SGLS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XLYP.L drawdown since its inception was -30.40%, which is greater than SGLS.L's maximum drawdown of -21.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XLYP.L and SGLS.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XLYP.LSGLS.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-30.40%

-21.94%

-8.46%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.73%

-17.93%

+5.20%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.52%

-17.93%

-8.59%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-30.40%

-21.94%

-8.46%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-30.40%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-6.66%

-15.99%

+9.33%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.54%

-6.98%

+0.44%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.60%

6.84%

-2.24%

Volatility

XLYP.L vs. SGLS.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco US Consumer Discretionary Sector UCITS ETF (XLYP.L) is 5.00%, while Invesco Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC (SGLS.L) has a volatility of 6.40%. This indicates that XLYP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SGLS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XLYP.LSGLS.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.00%

6.40%

-1.40%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.81%

21.65%

-9.84%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.81%

24.68%

-8.87%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.40%

17.91%

+2.49%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.86%

18.29%

+1.57%

XLYP.L vs. SGLS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XLYP.L has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than SGLS.L's 0.34% expense ratio.


Dividends

XLYP.L vs. SGLS.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XLYP.L nor SGLS.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


XLYP.L and SGLS.L have a correlation of 0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

XLYP.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for SGLS.L.

XLYP.L is categorized as Consumer Discretionary Equities, while SGLS.L is Precious Metals. XLYP.L tracks Cat 50%MSCI Wld/CD NR&50%MSCI Wld/CS NR, while SGLS.L tracks Gold (GBP Hedged). Their fees differ too: 0.14% for XLYP.L and 0.34% for SGLS.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XLYP.L and SGLS.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