'Total return, when measuring performance, is the actual rate of return of an investment or a pool of investments over a given evaluation period. Total return includes interest, capital gains, dividends and distributions realized over a given period of time. Total return accounts for two categories of return: income including interest paid by fixed-income investments, distributions or dividends and capital appreciation, representing the change in the market price of an asset.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- The total return over 5 years of Monster Beverage is 86.4%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (124.9%) in the same period.
- Looking at total return, or performance in of 57.4% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (60.5%).

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the annual return (CAGR) of 13.3% in the last 5 years of Monster Beverage, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (17.6%)
- During the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) is 16.4%, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 17.1% from the benchmark.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- The volatility over 5 years of Monster Beverage is 27.8%, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (18.7%) in the same period.
- Compared with SPY (22.6%) in the period of the last 3 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 29.4% is greater, thus worse.

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- The downside deviation over 5 years of Monster Beverage is 19.1%, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (13.5%) in the same period.
- Looking at downside deviation in of 19.8% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (16.4%).

'The Sharpe ratio (also known as the Sharpe index, the Sharpe measure, and the reward-to-variability ratio) is a way to examine the performance of an investment by adjusting for its risk. The ratio measures the excess return (or risk premium) per unit of deviation in an investment asset or a trading strategy, typically referred to as risk, named after William F. Sharpe.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.39 in the last 5 years of Monster Beverage, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.81)
- During the last 3 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) is 0.47, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 0.65 from the benchmark.

'The Sortino ratio, a variation of the Sharpe ratio only factors in the downside, or negative volatility, rather than the total volatility used in calculating the Sharpe ratio. The theory behind the Sortino variation is that upside volatility is a plus for the investment, and it, therefore, should not be included in the risk calculation. Therefore, the Sortino ratio takes upside volatility out of the equation and uses only the downside standard deviation in its calculation instead of the total standard deviation that is used in calculating the Sharpe ratio.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 0.56 in the last 5 years of Monster Beverage, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (1.12)
- Looking at downside risk / excess return profile in of 0.7 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (0.89).

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- The Downside risk index over 5 years of Monster Beverage is 12 , which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (5.58 ) in the same period.
- Compared with SPY (6.82 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Downside risk index of 8.44 is higher, thus worse.

'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 drop from peak to valley over 5 years of Monster Beverage is -30.4 days, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days) in the same period.
- Looking at maximum drop from peak to valley in of -27.6 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, 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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- 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 larger, thus worse.
- Looking at maximum days below previous high in of 133 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (128 days).

'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:- Looking at the average days below previous high of 129 days in the last 5 years of Monster Beverage, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (32 days)
- Looking at average time in days below previous high water mark in of 34 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (33 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 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.