'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (67.9%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return, or increase in value of -13.7% of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF is lower, thus worse.
- During the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value is 12.3%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 46.6% from the benchmark.

'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the annual return (CAGR) of -2.9% in the last 5 years of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (10.9%)
- Looking at compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) in of 3.9% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (13.6%).

'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:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (13.3%) in the period of the last 5 years, the volatility of 17% of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF is larger, thus worse.
- During the last 3 years, the 30 days standard deviation is 16.8%, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 12.5% from the benchmark.

'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- The downside volatility over 5 years of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF is 17.9%, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (14.6%) in the same period.
- During the last 3 years, the downside risk is 17.6%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 14.2% 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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of -0.32 in the last 5 years of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.64)
- Compared with SPY (0.89) in the period of the last 3 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 0.09 is lower, thus worse.

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of -0.3 in the last 5 years of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.58)
- During the last 3 years, the downside risk / excess return profile is 0.08, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 0.78 from the benchmark.

'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (3.96 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 16 of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF is larger, thus better.
- Compared with SPY (4.01 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 7.04 is higher, thus better.

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the maximum DrawDown of -34 days in the last 5 years of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (-19.3 days)
- Looking at maximum reduction from previous high in of -21.2 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (-19.3 days).

'The Maximum 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. It is the length of time the account was in the Max Drawdown. A Max Drawdown measures a retrenchment from when an equity curve reaches a new high. It’s the maximum an account lost during that retrenchment. This method is applied because a valley can’t be measured until a new high occurs. Once the new high is reached, the percentage change from the old high to the bottom of the largest trough is recorded.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (187 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 1004 days of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF is greater, thus worse.
- During the last 3 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark is 328 days, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 139 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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- The average days under water over 5 years of Global X Fertilizers/Potash ETF is 416 days, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (41 days) in the same period.
- Compared with SPY (36 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark of 99 days is greater, thus worse.

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

- "Year" returns in the table above are not equal to 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.