Global X Clean Water ETF (AQWA)

TotalReturn:

'The total return on a portfolio of investments takes into account not only the capital appreciation on the portfolio, but also the income received on the portfolio. The income typically consists of interest, dividends, and securities lending fees. This contrasts with the price return, which takes into account only the capital gain on an investment.'

• Looking at the total return of 18% in the last 5 years of Global X Clean Water ETF, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (84.5%)
• Looking at total return in of 29.6% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (78%).

CAGR:

'The compound annual growth rate isn't a true return rate, but rather a representational figure. It is essentially a number that describes the rate at which an investment would have grown if it had grown the same rate every year and the profits were reinvested at the end of each year. In reality, this sort of performance is unlikely. However, CAGR can be used to smooth returns so that they may be more easily understood when compared to alternative investments.'

• Looking at the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.4% in the last 5 years of Global X Clean Water ETF, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (13.1%)
• Compared with SPY (21.3%) in the period of the last 3 years, the annual performance (CAGR) of 9.1% is smaller, thus worse.

Volatility:

'Volatility is a statistical measure of the dispersion of returns for a given security or market index. Volatility can either be measured by using the standard deviation or variance between returns from that same security or market index. Commonly, the higher the volatility, the riskier the security. In the securities markets, volatility is often associated with big swings in either direction. For example, when the stock market rises and falls more than one percent over a sustained period of time, it is called a 'volatile' market.'

• Looking at the volatility of 16.9% in the last 5 years of Global X Clean Water ETF, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (17.2%)
• Compared with SPY (15.3%) in the period of the last 3 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 15.4% is higher, thus worse.

DownVol:

'The downside volatility is similar to the volatility, or standard deviation, but only takes losing/negative periods into account.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (11.8%) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside volatility of 11.6% of Global X Clean Water ETF is lower, thus better.
• Compared with SPY (10.2%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside deviation of 10.4% is larger, thus worse.

Sharpe:

'The Sharpe ratio was developed by Nobel laureate William F. Sharpe, and is used to help investors understand the return of an investment compared to its risk. The ratio is the average return earned in excess of the risk-free rate per unit of volatility or total risk. Subtracting the risk-free rate from the mean return allows an investor to better isolate the profits associated with risk-taking activities. One intuition of this calculation is that a portfolio engaging in 'zero risk' investments, such as the purchase of U.S. Treasury bills (for which the expected return is the risk-free rate), has a Sharpe ratio of exactly zero. Generally, the greater the value of the Sharpe ratio, the more attractive the risk-adjusted return.'

• Looking at the Sharpe Ratio of 0.05 in the last 5 years of Global X Clean Water ETF, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.62)
• Looking at risk / return profile (Sharpe) in of 0.43 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.23).

Sortino:

'The Sortino ratio, a variation of the Sharpe ratio only factors in the downside, or negative volatility, rather than the total volatility used in calculating the Sharpe ratio. The theory behind the Sortino variation is that upside volatility is a plus for the investment, and it, therefore, should not be included in the risk calculation. Therefore, the Sortino ratio takes upside volatility out of the equation and uses only the downside standard deviation in its calculation instead of the total standard deviation that is used in calculating the Sharpe ratio.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.89) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 0.08 of Global X Clean Water ETF is smaller, thus worse.
• Looking at downside risk / excess return profile in of 0.63 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.83).

Ulcer:

'Ulcer Index is a method for measuring investment risk that addresses the real concerns of investors, unlike the widely used standard deviation of return. UI is a measure of the depth and duration of drawdowns in prices from earlier highs. Using Ulcer Index instead of standard deviation can lead to very different conclusions about investment risk and risk-adjusted return, especially when evaluating strategies that seek to avoid major declines in portfolio value (market timing, dynamic asset allocation, hedge funds, etc.). The Ulcer Index was originally developed in 1987. Since then, it has been widely recognized and adopted by the investment community. According to Nelson Freeburg, editor of Formula Research, Ulcer Index is “perhaps the most fully realized statistical portrait of risk there is.'

• The Ulcer Ratio over 5 years of Global X Clean Water ETF is 11 , which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (8.45 ) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (3.3 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Index of 5.16 is larger, thus worse.

MaxDD:

'Maximum drawdown measures the loss in any losing period during a fund’s investment record. It is defined as the percent retrenchment from a fund’s peak value to the fund’s valley value. The drawdown is in effect from the time the fund’s retrenchment begins until a new fund high is reached. The maximum drawdown encompasses both the period from the fund’s peak to the fund’s valley (length), and the time from the fund’s valley to a new fund high (recovery). It measures the largest percentage drawdown that has occurred in any fund’s data record.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum drop from peak to valley of -29.4 days of Global X Clean Water ETF is lower, thus worse.
• Looking at maximum reduction from previous high in of -14.4 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus better in comparison to SPY (-18.8 days).

MaxDuration:

'The Drawdown Duration is the length of any peak to peak period, or the time between new equity highs. The Max Drawdown Duration is the worst (the maximum/longest) amount of time an investment has seen between peaks (equity highs) in days.'

• The maximum time in days below previous high water mark over 5 years of Global X Clean Water ETF is 543 days, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the same period.
• Looking at maximum time in days below previous high water mark in of 144 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to SPY (87 days).

AveDuration:

'The Average Drawdown Duration is an extension of the Maximum Drawdown. However, this metric does not explain the drawdown in dollars or percentages, rather in days, weeks, or months. The Avg Drawdown Duration is the average amount of time an investment has seen between peaks (equity highs), or in other terms the average of time under water of all drawdowns. So in contrast to the Maximum duration it does not measure only one drawdown event but calculates the average of all.'

• The average time in days below previous high water mark over 5 years of Global X Clean Water ETF is 149 days, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (118 days) in the same period.
• Looking at average days below previous high in of 46 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (17 days).