'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 179.9%, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (66%) in the same period.
- During the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value is 22%, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 45.6% from the benchmark.

'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:- Looking at the annual performance (CAGR) of 22.9% in the last 5 years of Monster Beverage, we see it is relatively higher, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (10.7%)
- Compared with SPY (13.3%) in the period of the last 3 years, the annual performance (CAGR) of 6.9% is smaller, thus worse.

'Volatility is a rate at which the price of a security increases or decreases for a given set of returns. Volatility is measured by calculating the standard deviation of the annualized returns over a given period of time. It shows the range to which the price of a security may increase or decrease. Volatility measures the risk of a security. It is used in option pricing formula to gauge the fluctuations in the returns of the underlying assets. Volatility indicates the pricing behavior of the security and helps estimate the fluctuations that may happen in a short period of time.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the historical 30 days volatility of 31.4% in the last 5 years of Monster Beverage, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (13.4%)
- Looking at historical 30 days volatility in of 26.3% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to SPY (12.3%).

'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:- Looking at the downside volatility of 28.1% in the last 5 years of Monster Beverage, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (14.6%)
- During the last 3 years, the downside deviation is 27.3%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 13.8% 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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- The Sharpe Ratio over 5 years of Monster Beverage is 0.65, which is higher, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (0.61) in the same period.
- Looking at ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) in of 0.17 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (0.88).

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.56) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 0.72 of Monster Beverage is larger, thus better.
- During the last 3 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation is 0.16, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 0.78 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:- Looking at the Ulcer Ratio of 12 in the last 5 years of Monster Beverage, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (3.99 )
- Looking at Downside risk index in of 14 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (4.04 ).

'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 reduction from previous high over 5 years of Monster Beverage is -30.4 days, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (-19.3 days) in the same period.
- Compared with SPY (-19.3 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum drop from peak to valley of -30.4 days is smaller, thus worse.

'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). Many assume Max DD Duration is the length of time between new highs during which the Max DD (magnitude) occurred. But that isn’t always the case. The Max DD duration is the longest time between peaks, period. So it could be the time when the program also had its biggest peak to valley loss (and usually is, because the program needs a long time to recover from the largest loss), but it doesn’t have to be'

Which means for our asset as example:- The maximum days below previous high over 5 years of Monster Beverage is 371 days, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (187 days) in the same period.
- During the last 3 years, the maximum days below previous high is 371 days, which is greater, 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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Looking at the average days below previous high of 101 days in the last 5 years of Monster Beverage, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (41 days)
- Compared with SPY (36 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark of 143 days is greater, thus worse.

Historical returns have been extended using synthetic data.
[Show Details]

- "Year" returns in the table above are not equal to 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.