'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- The total return, or performance over 5 years of Monster Beverage is 100.2%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (106.8%) in the same period.
- Looking at total return in of 54.6% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (71.9%).

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (15.7%) in the period of the last 5 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.9% of Monster Beverage is smaller, thus worse.
- Compared with SPY (19.8%) in the period of the last 3 years, the annual performance (CAGR) of 15.6% is lower, thus worse.

'Volatility is a statistical measure of the dispersion of returns for a given security or market index. Volatility can either be measured by using the standard deviation or variance between returns from that same security or market index. Commonly, the higher the volatility, the riskier the security. In the securities markets, volatility is often associated with big swings in either direction. For example, when the stock market rises and falls more than one percent over a sustained period of time, it is called a 'volatile' market.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (18.9%) in the period of the last 5 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 27.6% of Monster Beverage is greater, thus worse.
- During the last 3 years, the volatility is 28.5%, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 21.9% from the benchmark.

'The downside volatility is similar to the volatility, or standard deviation, but only takes losing/negative periods into account.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (13.8%) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside deviation of 19% of Monster Beverage is greater, thus worse.
- Looking at downside deviation in of 19.1% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (15.9%).

'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 Monster Beverage is 0.45, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.69) in the same period.
- Compared with SPY (0.79) in the period of the last 3 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 0.46 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:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.95) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 0.65 of Monster Beverage is lower, thus worse.
- During the last 3 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation is 0.69, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 1.09 from the benchmark.

'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 (5.61 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 12 of Monster Beverage is larger, thus worse.
- During the last 3 years, the Downside risk index is 8.44 , which is greater, thus worse than the value of 6.08 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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- The maximum DrawDown over 5 years of Monster Beverage is -30.4 days, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days) in the same period.
- Looking at maximum DrawDown in of -27.6 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to SPY (-33.7 days).

'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (139 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 508 days of Monster Beverage is greater, thus worse.
- Compared with SPY (119 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum days below previous high of 133 days is greater, thus worse.

'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 time in days below previous high water mark of 127 days in the last 5 years of Monster Beverage, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (32 days)
- Compared with SPY (22 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark of 40 days is greater, 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 Monster Beverage 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.