'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the total return of 185.6% in the last 5 years of Activision Blizzard, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (59.2%)
- During the last 3 years, the total return is 22.8%, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 33.1% 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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (9.7%) in the period of the last 5 years, the annual return (CAGR) of 23.4% of Activision Blizzard is higher, thus better.
- Looking at annual return (CAGR) in of 7.1% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (10%).

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the volatility of 34.9% in the last 5 years of Activision Blizzard, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (18.7%)
- Looking at volatility in of 37% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (21.5%).

'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 24.2% in the last 5 years of Activision Blizzard, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (13.6%)
- Looking at downside deviation in of 27% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to SPY (15.7%).

'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:- The Sharpe Ratio over 5 years of Activision Blizzard is 0.6, which is higher, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (0.39) in the same period.
- Compared with SPY (0.35) in the period of the last 3 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 0.12 is smaller, thus worse.

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 0.86 in the last 5 years of Activision Blizzard, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.53)
- Compared with SPY (0.48) in the period of the last 3 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 0.17 is lower, thus worse.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Looking at the Downside risk index of 22 in the last 5 years of Activision Blizzard, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (5.79 )
- Compared with SPY (6.83 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Downside risk index of 28 is higher, thus worse.

'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:- Looking at the maximum DrawDown of -51.9 days in the last 5 years of Activision Blizzard, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days)
- During the last 3 years, the maximum DrawDown is -51.9 days, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of -33.7 days from the benchmark.

'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:- Looking at the maximum days under water of 414 days in the last 5 years of Activision Blizzard, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (187 days)
- During the last 3 years, the maximum days under water is 414 days, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 139 days from the benchmark.

'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the average days below previous high of 90 days in the last 5 years of Activision Blizzard, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (42 days)
- During the last 3 years, the average days under water is 130 days, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 38 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 Activision Blizzard 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.