'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (63%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return of 46.6% of Invesco Global Water ETF is lower, thus worse.
- Compared with SPY (33.5%) in the period of the last 3 years, the total return of 18.5% is lower, thus worse.

'Compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is a business and investing specific term for the geometric progression ratio that provides a constant rate of return over the time period. CAGR is not an accounting term, but it is often used to describe some element of the business, for example revenue, units delivered, registered users, etc. CAGR dampens the effect of volatility of periodic returns that can render arithmetic means irrelevant. It is particularly useful to compare growth rates from various data sets of common domain such as revenue growth of companies in the same industry.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (10.3%) in the period of the last 5 years, the annual performance (CAGR) of 8% of Invesco Global Water ETF is lower, thus worse.
- Looking at annual return (CAGR) in of 5.8% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (10.1%).

'In finance, volatility (symbol σ) is the degree of variation of a trading price series over time as measured by the standard deviation of logarithmic returns. Historic volatility measures a time series of past market prices. Implied volatility looks forward in time, being derived from the market price of a market-traded derivative (in particular, an option). Commonly, the higher the volatility, the riskier the security.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- The volatility over 5 years of Invesco Global Water ETF is 21.2%, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (21.6%) in the same period.
- Looking at 30 days standard deviation in of 24.6% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to SPY (25.1%).

'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (15.6%) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk of 15.1% of Invesco Global Water ETF is lower, thus better.
- During the last 3 years, the downside volatility is 17.6%, which is lower, thus better than the value of 18.1% from the benchmark.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- The ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) over 5 years of Invesco Global Water ETF is 0.26, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.36) in the same period.
- Compared with SPY (0.3) in the period of the last 3 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.13 is lower, thus worse.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- The downside risk / excess return profile over 5 years of Invesco Global Water ETF is 0.36, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.5) in the same period.
- During the last 3 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation is 0.19, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 0.42 from the benchmark.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Looking at the Downside risk index of 12 in the last 5 years of Invesco Global Water ETF, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (8.88 )
- During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio is 15 , which is greater, thus worse than the value of 11 from the benchmark.

'A maximum drawdown is the maximum loss from a peak to a trough of a portfolio, before a new peak is attained. Maximum Drawdown is an indicator of downside risk over a specified time period. It can be used both as a stand-alone measure or as an input into other metrics such as 'Return over Maximum Drawdown' and the Calmar Ratio. Maximum Drawdown is expressed in percentage terms.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum DrawDown of -35.8 days of Invesco Global Water ETF is lower, thus worse.
- Compared with SPY (-33.7 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum drop from peak to valley of -35.8 days is smaller, 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:- Looking at the maximum days under water of 276 days in the last 5 years of Invesco Global Water ETF, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (273 days)
- Looking at maximum days below previous high in of 276 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (273 days).

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the average days under water of 61 days in the last 5 years of Invesco Global Water ETF, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (57 days)
- During the last 3 years, the average days under water is 77 days, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 73 days from the benchmark.

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 Invesco Global Water 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.