'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (62.9%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return of 66.1% of Procter & Gamble Company (The) is larger, thus better.
- During the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value is 46.1%, which is higher, thus better than the value of 39.8% 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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (10.3%) in the period of the last 5 years, the annual return (CAGR) of 10.7% of Procter & Gamble Company (The) is larger, thus better.
- Looking at annual performance (CAGR) in of 13.5% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to SPY (11.8%).

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the 30 days standard deviation of 15.6% in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble Company (The), we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (13.5%)
- During the last 3 years, the historical 30 days volatility is 15.9%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 13.3% from the benchmark.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (9.8%) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk of 10.6% of Procter & Gamble Company (The) is larger, thus worse.
- Looking at downside deviation in of 10.8% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (9.8%).

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.58) in the period of the last 5 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.53 of Procter & Gamble Company (The) is lower, thus worse.
- Compared with SPY (0.71) in the period of the last 3 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 0.69 is lower, thus worse.

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 0.77 in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble Company (The), we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.79)
- Looking at ratio of annual return and downside deviation in of 1.02 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to SPY (0.96).

'The Ulcer Index is a technical indicator that measures downside risk, in terms of both the depth and duration of price declines. The index increases in value as the price moves farther away from a recent high and falls as the price rises to new highs. The indicator is usually calculated over a 14-day period, with the Ulcer Index showing the percentage drawdown a trader can expect from the high over that period. The greater the value of the Ulcer Index, the longer it takes for a stock to get back to the former high.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Looking at the Ulcer Ratio of 7.15 in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble Company (The), we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (3.98 )
- Looking at Downside risk index in of 7.62 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (4.12 ).

'Maximum drawdown measures the loss in any losing period during a fund’s investment record. It is defined as the percent retrenchment from a fund’s peak value to the fund’s valley value. The drawdown is in effect from the time the fund’s retrenchment begins until a new fund high is reached. The maximum drawdown encompasses both the period from the fund’s peak to the fund’s valley (length), and the time from the fund’s valley to a new fund high (recovery). It measures the largest percentage drawdown that has occurred in any fund’s data record.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Compared with the benchmark SPY (-19.3 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum DrawDown of -23 days of Procter & Gamble Company (The) is lower, thus worse.
- Compared with SPY (-19.3 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high of -23 days is lower, 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:- Looking at the maximum days below previous high of 283 days in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble Company (The), we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (187 days)
- Compared with SPY (139 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum days below previous high of 283 days is larger, thus worse.

'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- The average days under water over 5 years of Procter & Gamble Company (The) is 75 days, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (42 days) in the same period.
- Looking at average days below previous high in of 71 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (37 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 Procter & Gamble Company (The) 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.