ProShares Online Retail ETF (ONLN)

TotalReturn:

'Total return, when measuring performance, is the actual rate of return of an investment or a pool of investments over a given evaluation period. Total return includes interest, capital gains, dividends and distributions realized over a given period of time. Total return accounts for two categories of return: income including interest paid by fixed-income investments, distributions or dividends and capital appreciation, representing the change in the market price of an asset.'

• The total return over 5 years of ProShares Online Retail ETF is -2.9%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (80%) in the same period.
• Looking at total return in of -54.8% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (31.8%).

CAGR:

'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.'

• The compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) over 5 years of ProShares Online Retail ETF is -0.6%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (12.5%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) is -23.3%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 9.7% from the benchmark.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (21.3%) in the period of the last 5 years, the volatility of 35.1% of ProShares Online Retail ETF is larger, thus worse.
• Looking at volatility in of 37.6% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (17.6%).

DownVol:

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

• Looking at the downside volatility of 24.8% in the last 5 years of ProShares Online Retail ETF, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (15.3%)
• During the last 3 years, the downside volatility is 26.8%, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 12.3% from the benchmark.

Sharpe:

'The Sharpe ratio (also known as the Sharpe index, the Sharpe measure, and the reward-to-variability ratio) is a way to examine the performance of an investment by adjusting for its risk. The ratio measures the excess return (or risk premium) per unit of deviation in an investment asset or a trading strategy, typically referred to as risk, named after William F. Sharpe.'

• The risk / return profile (Sharpe) over 5 years of ProShares Online Retail ETF is -0.09, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.47) in the same period.
• Looking at Sharpe Ratio in of -0.69 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (0.41).

Sortino:

'The Sortino ratio measures the risk-adjusted return of an investment asset, portfolio, or strategy. It is a modification of the Sharpe ratio but penalizes only those returns falling below a user-specified target or required rate of return, while the Sharpe ratio penalizes both upside and downside volatility equally. Though both ratios measure an investment's risk-adjusted return, they do so in significantly different ways that will frequently lead to differing conclusions as to the true nature of the investment's return-generating efficiency. The Sortino ratio is used as a way to compare the risk-adjusted performance of programs with differing risk and return profiles. In general, risk-adjusted returns seek to normalize the risk across programs and then see which has the higher return unit per risk.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.66) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of -0.12 of ProShares Online Retail ETF is lower, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (0.58) in the period of the last 3 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation of -0.96 is lower, thus worse.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (9.43 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Downside risk index of 40 of ProShares Online Retail ETF is larger, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio is 52 , which is greater, thus worse than the value of 10 from the benchmark.

MaxDD:

'Maximum drawdown is defined as the peak-to-trough decline of an investment during a specific period. It is usually quoted as a percentage of the peak value. The maximum drawdown can be calculated based on absolute returns, in order to identify strategies that suffer less during market downturns, such as low-volatility strategies. However, the maximum drawdown can also be calculated based on returns relative to a benchmark index, for identifying strategies that show steady outperformance over time.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum DrawDown of -71.8 days of ProShares Online Retail ETF is lower, thus worse.
• Looking at maximum reduction from previous high in of -71.8 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (-24.5 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). Many assume Max DD Duration is the length of time between new highs during which the Max DD (magnitude) occurred. But that isn’t always the case. The Max DD duration is the longest time between peaks, period. So it could be the time when the program also had its biggest peak to valley loss (and usually is, because the program needs a long time to recover from the largest loss), but it doesn’t have to be'

• Looking at the maximum days under water of 704 days in the last 5 years of ProShares Online Retail ETF, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (480 days)
• During the last 3 years, the maximum days under water is 704 days, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 480 days from the benchmark.

AveDuration:

'The Drawdown Duration is the length of any peak to peak period, or the time between new equity highs. 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (119 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days below previous high of 232 days of ProShares Online Retail ETF is larger, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the average days under water is 339 days, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 174 days from the benchmark.