'Total return is the amount of value an investor earns from a security over a specific period, typically one year, when all distributions are reinvested. Total return is expressed as a percentage of the amount invested. For example, a total return of 20% means the security increased by 20% of its original value due to a price increase, distribution of dividends (if a stock), coupons (if a bond) or capital gains (if a fund). Total return is a strong measure of an investment’s overall performance.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (94.8%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return, or performance of 25.2% of Johnson & Johnson is lower, thus worse.
- Compared with SPY (31.6%) in the period of the last 3 years, the total return, or performance of -0.6% is lower, thus worse.

'The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is a useful measure of growth over multiple time periods. It can be thought of as the growth rate that gets you from the initial investment value to the ending investment value if you assume that the investment has been compounding over the time period.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- The compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) over 5 years of Johnson & Johnson is 4.6%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (14.3%) in the same period.
- Looking at compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) in of -0.2% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (9.6%).

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the 30 days standard deviation of 19.8% in the last 5 years of Johnson & Johnson, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (20.9%)
- Compared with SPY (17.3%) in the period of the last 3 years, the volatility of 15.8% is smaller, thus better.

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the downside volatility of 13.7% in the last 5 years of Johnson & Johnson, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (15%)
- During the last 3 years, the downside risk is 10.9%, which is lower, thus better than the value of 12.1% from the benchmark.

'The Sharpe ratio is the measure of risk-adjusted return of a financial portfolio. Sharpe ratio is a measure of excess portfolio return over the risk-free rate relative to its standard deviation. Normally, the 90-day Treasury bill rate is taken as the proxy for risk-free rate. A portfolio with a higher Sharpe ratio is considered superior relative to its peers. The measure was named after William F Sharpe, a Nobel laureate and professor of finance, emeritus at Stanford University.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Looking at the Sharpe Ratio of 0.11 in the last 5 years of Johnson & Johnson, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.56)
- Looking at Sharpe Ratio in of -0.17 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (0.41).

'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:- The ratio of annual return and downside deviation over 5 years of Johnson & Johnson is 0.15, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.79) in the same period.
- Looking at excess return divided by the downside deviation in of -0.25 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (0.59).

'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:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (9.33 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Index of 7.82 of Johnson & Johnson is lower, thus better.
- During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio is 8.64 , which is smaller, thus better than the value of 10 from the benchmark.

'Maximum drawdown is defined as the peak-to-trough decline of an investment during a specific period. It is usually quoted as a percentage of the peak value. The maximum drawdown can be calculated based on absolute returns, in order to identify strategies that suffer less during market downturns, such as low-volatility strategies. However, the maximum drawdown can also be calculated based on returns relative to a benchmark index, for identifying strategies that show steady outperformance over time.'

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 DrawDown of -27.4 days of Johnson & Johnson is larger, thus better.
- During the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high is -18.4 days, which is higher, thus better than the value of -24.5 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 (488 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 493 days of Johnson & Johnson is larger, thus worse.
- Compared with SPY (488 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 493 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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the average time in days below previous high water mark of 127 days in the last 5 years of Johnson & Johnson, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (123 days)
- Compared with SPY (179 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average days under water of 183 days is higher, 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 Johnson & Johnson 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.