'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:- Looking at the total return of 36.5% in the last 5 years of Johnson & Johnson, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (63%)
- During the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value is 18.5%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 33.5% 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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Looking at the annual return (CAGR) of 6.4% in the last 5 years of Johnson & Johnson, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (10.3%)
- Looking at annual return (CAGR) in of 5.8% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (10.1%).

'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:- The volatility over 5 years of Johnson & Johnson is 20.8%, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (21.6%) in the same period.
- Compared with SPY (25.1%) in the period of the last 3 years, the volatility of 22% is lower, thus better.

'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 volatility of 14.9% in the last 5 years of Johnson & Johnson, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (15.6%)
- During the last 3 years, the downside deviation is 14.9%, which is lower, thus better than the value of 18.1% 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:- The risk / return profile (Sharpe) over 5 years of Johnson & Johnson is 0.19, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.36) in the same period.
- Compared with SPY (0.3) in the period of the last 3 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.15 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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 0.26 in the last 5 years of Johnson & Johnson, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.5)
- Looking at ratio of annual return and downside deviation in of 0.22 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (0.42).

'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:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (8.88 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Index of 6.66 of Johnson & Johnson is smaller, thus better.
- Compared with SPY (11 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Index of 6.2 is lower, thus better.

'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:- Looking at the maximum drop from peak to valley of -27.4 days in the last 5 years of Johnson & Johnson, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days)
- Compared with SPY (-33.7 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum drop from peak to valley of -27.4 days is higher, thus better.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Looking at the maximum days under water of 255 days in the last 5 years of Johnson & Johnson, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (273 days)
- During the last 3 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark is 196 days, which is lower, thus better than the value of 273 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 Johnson & Johnson is 70 days, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (57 days) in the same period.
- Compared with SPY (73 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark of 57 days is lower, thus better.

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.