'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:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (68.1%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return of 98.8% of NetApp is higher, thus better.
- Looking at total return in of 167.2% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to SPY (47.1%).

'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 return (CAGR) of 14.7% in the last 5 years of NetApp, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (11%)
- During the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) is 38.9%, which is larger, thus better than the value of 13.8% from the benchmark.

'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 NetApp is 29.4%, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (13.2%) in the same period.
- Compared with SPY (12.4%) in the period of the last 3 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 31.3% is greater, thus worse.

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

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- The downside volatility over 5 years of NetApp is 30.3%, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (14.6%) in the same period.
- During the last 3 years, the downside volatility is 31.7%, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 14% from the benchmark.

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.42 in the last 5 years of NetApp, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.64)
- During the last 3 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) is 1.16, which is greater, thus better than the value of 0.91 from the benchmark.

'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the downside risk / excess return profile of 0.4 in the last 5 years of NetApp, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.58)
- Looking at excess return divided by the downside deviation in of 1.15 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus better in comparison to SPY (0.8).

'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:- Looking at the Ulcer Ratio of 20 in the last 5 years of NetApp, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (3.95 )
- During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Index is 10 , which is greater, thus better than the value of 4 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:- Looking at the maximum DrawDown of -49.7 days in the last 5 years of NetApp, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (-19.3 days)
- During the last 3 years, the maximum DrawDown is -37.4 days, which is lower, thus worse than the value of -19.3 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). 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'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- The maximum days below previous high over 5 years of NetApp is 558 days, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (187 days) in the same period.
- Looking at maximum days below previous high in of 133 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (131 days).

'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:- The average time in days below previous high water mark over 5 years of NetApp is 151 days, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (39 days) in the same period.
- Compared with SPY (33 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark of 34 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 NetApp 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.