'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (93.6%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return, or increase in value of 37.1% of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is smaller, thus worse.
- Looking at total return in of 19.3% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (33.2%).

'The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is a useful measure of growth over multiple time periods. It can be thought of as the growth rate that gets you from the initial investment value to the ending investment value if you assume that the investment has been compounding over the time period.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the annual performance (CAGR) of 6.5% in the last 5 years of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (14.2%)
- Compared with SPY (10%) in the period of the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) of 6.1% is smaller, thus worse.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Looking at the historical 30 days volatility of 26.1% in the last 5 years of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (20.9%)
- Looking at volatility in of 21.9% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (17.5%).

'Downside risk is the financial risk associated with losses. That is, it is the risk of the actual return being below the expected return, or the uncertainty about the magnitude of that difference. Risk measures typically quantify the downside risk, whereas the standard deviation (an example of a deviation risk measure) measures both the upside and downside risk. Specifically, downside risk in our definition is the semi-deviation, that is the standard deviation of all negative returns.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- The downside risk over 5 years of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is 19.1%, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (15%) in the same period.
- Compared with SPY (12.2%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside risk of 15.6% is greater, thus worse.

'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.15 in the last 5 years of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.56)
- Looking at ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) in of 0.16 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (0.43).

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the downside risk / excess return profile of 0.21 in the last 5 years of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.78)
- Compared with SPY (0.62) in the period of the last 3 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 0.23 is lower, thus worse.

'The ulcer index is a stock market risk measure or technical analysis indicator devised by Peter Martin in 1987, and published by him and Byron McCann in their 1989 book The Investors Guide to Fidelity Funds. It's designed as a measure of volatility, but only volatility in the downward direction, i.e. the amount of drawdown or retracement occurring over a period. Other volatility measures like standard deviation treat up and down movement equally, but a trader doesn't mind upward movement, it's the downside that causes stress and stomach ulcers that the index's name suggests.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the Downside risk index of 12 in the last 5 years of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (9.33 )
- During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio is 9.69 , which is lower, thus better than the value of 10 from the benchmark.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Looking at the maximum reduction from previous high of -45.3 days in the last 5 years of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days)
- Compared with SPY (-24.5 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high of -25.7 days is lower, thus worse.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- The maximum time in days below previous high water mark over 5 years of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is 460 days, which is smaller, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the same period.
- During the last 3 years, the maximum days under water is 460 days, which is smaller, thus better than the value of 488 days from the benchmark.

'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (123 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days under water of 136 days of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is larger, thus worse.
- Looking at average time in days below previous high water mark in of 165 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to SPY (180 days).

Historical returns have been extended using synthetic data.
[Show Details]

- Note that yearly returns do not equal the sum of monthly returns due to compounding.
- Performance results of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF are hypothetical, do not account for slippage, fees or taxes, and are based on backtesting, which has many inherent limitations, some of which are described in our Terms of Use.