'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:- The total return, or increase in value over 5 years of Goldman Sachs Group is 153.7%, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (122.1%) in the same period.
- During the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value is 67%, which is greater, thus better than the value of 64.6% from the benchmark.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (17.3%) in the period of the last 5 years, the annual return (CAGR) of 20.5% of Goldman Sachs Group is larger, thus better.
- During the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) is 18.7%, which is higher, thus better than the value of 18.1% from the benchmark.

'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 30 days standard deviation of 31.5% in the last 5 years of Goldman Sachs Group, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (18.7%)
- Looking at 30 days standard deviation in of 36.7% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (22.5%).

'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:- Looking at the downside deviation of 21.4% in the last 5 years of Goldman Sachs Group, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (13.6%)
- Compared with SPY (16.4%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside volatility of 25% is greater, thus worse.

'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 Sharpe Ratio over 5 years of Goldman Sachs Group is 0.57, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.79) in the same period.
- Compared with SPY (0.69) in the period of the last 3 years, the Sharpe Ratio of 0.44 is smaller, 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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- The excess return divided by the downside deviation over 5 years of Goldman Sachs Group is 0.84, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (1.09) in the same period.
- Compared with SPY (0.95) in the period of the last 3 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 0.65 is lower, thus worse.

'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the Ulcer Ratio of 17 in the last 5 years of Goldman Sachs Group, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (5.58 )
- During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio is 15 , which is greater, thus worse than the value of 6.83 from the benchmark.

'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:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum DrawDown of -48.7 days of Goldman Sachs Group is smaller, thus worse.
- Compared with SPY (-33.7 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum DrawDown of -45.6 days is smaller, thus worse.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Looking at the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 704 days in the last 5 years of Goldman Sachs Group, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (139 days)
- During the last 3 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark is 342 days, which is higher, 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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the average days below previous high of 231 days in the last 5 years of Goldman Sachs Group, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (33 days)
- Looking at average days under water in of 121 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (35 days).

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 Goldman Sachs Group 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.