'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 (120.7%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return of -13.3% of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF is lower, thus worse.
- Looking at total return in of -8.9% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (44%).

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- The compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) over 5 years of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF is -2.9%, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (17.2%) in the same period.
- Compared with SPY (12.9%) in the period of the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) of -3.1% 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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the volatility of 22.4% in the last 5 years of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (18.8%)
- During the last 3 years, the historical 30 days volatility is 24.4%, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 22.8% from the benchmark.

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

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the downside risk of 16.6% in the last 5 years of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (13.6%)
- Compared with SPY (16.7%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside volatility of 18.3% is larger, thus worse.

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- The Sharpe Ratio over 5 years of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF is -0.24, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.78) in the same period.
- During the last 3 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) is -0.23, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 0.46 from the benchmark.

'The Sortino ratio improves upon the Sharpe ratio by isolating downside volatility from total volatility by dividing excess return by the downside deviation. The Sortino ratio is a variation of the Sharpe ratio that differentiates harmful volatility from total overall volatility by using the asset's standard deviation of negative asset returns, called downside deviation. The Sortino ratio takes the asset's return and subtracts the risk-free rate, and then divides that amount by the asset's downside deviation. The ratio was named after Frank A. Sortino.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- The excess return divided by the downside deviation over 5 years of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF is -0.33, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (1.08) in the same period.
- Looking at ratio of annual return and downside deviation in of -0.31 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (0.62).

'The Ulcer Index is a technical indicator that measures downside risk, in terms of both the depth and duration of price declines. The index increases in value as the price moves farther away from a recent high and falls as the price rises to new highs. The indicator is usually calculated over a 14-day period, with the Ulcer Index showing the percentage drawdown a trader can expect from the high over that period. The greater the value of the Ulcer Index, the longer it takes for a stock to get back to the former high.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (5.59 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Index of 16 of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF is greater, thus worse.
- Looking at Ulcer Ratio in of 18 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (7.15 ).

'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:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum drop from peak to valley of -50.3 days of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF is lower, thus worse.
- During the last 3 years, the maximum DrawDown is -50.3 days, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of -33.7 days from the benchmark.

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (139 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 642 days of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF is larger, thus worse.
- Compared with SPY (139 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum days under water of 642 days is greater, thus worse.

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the average days below previous high of 267 days in the last 5 years of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (33 days)
- Compared with SPY (45 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark of 287 days is larger, thus worse.

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 Global X Fertilizers/Potash 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.