Xtrackers Harvest Competition
| ASHR Etf | USD 33.14 -0.40 -1.19% |
Xtrackers Harvest vs SPDR SAMPP Correlation Overview
Poor diversification
The correlation between ASHR and MDYG is 0.78, which Macroaxis classifies as Poor diversification for the selected horizon. This matters because lower overlap can improve diversification, while higher overlap leaves more of the same risk inside the portfolio.
Moving together with Xtrackers Etf
Moving against Xtrackers Etf
Experienced investors tracking Xtrackers Harvest's watch for mean reversion setups: periods when price has deviated significantly from its long-run average, creating an asymmetric risk-reward profile for patient capital.
Xtrackers Harvest Competition Correlation Matrix
Competition correlation for Xtrackers Harvest CSI matters because related securities often respond to the same industry, factor, or macro drivers even when their business stories differ. This matrix is most informative when investors want to know whether adding another peer would improve diversification, increase crowding, or leave total risk largely unchanged.
High positive correlations
| High negative correlations
|
Xtrackers Harvest Constituents Risk-Adjusted Indicators
Surface-level performance for Xtrackers Etf can mask how the business actually stacks up against its competitive set. There are so many exceptions to the norm that investors cannot definitively determine what's good or bad unless they analyze Xtrackers Harvest's multiple risk-adjusted performance indicators across the competitive landscape. These indicators are quantitative in nature and help investors forecast volatility and risk-adjusted expected returns across various positions.| Mean Deviation | Jensen Alpha | Sortino Ratio | Treynor Ratio | Semi Deviation | Expected Shortfall | Potential Upside | Value @Risk | Maximum Drawdown | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FLJP | 0.92 | 0.15 | 0.11 | 0.06 | 1.21 | 2.04 | 7.37 | |||
| MDYV | 0.71 | 0.03 | 0.00 | -0.05 | 0.00 | 1.45 | 4.75 | |||
| FNCL | 0.81 | -0.08 | 0.00 | -0.16 | 0.00 | 1.27 | 5.70 | |||
| SMLF | 0.82 | 0.05 | 0.00 | -0.04 | 0.00 | 1.42 | 5.29 | |||
| FELV | 0.50 | 0.07 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.71 | 0.88 | 2.96 | |||
| FESM | 0.89 | -0.04 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 0.00 | 1.40 | 6.19 | |||
| FXO | 0.80 | -0.06 | 0.00 | -0.15 | 0.00 | 1.18 | 5.24 | |||
| FALIX | 0.39 | -0.03 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.90 | 3.50 | |||
| FLIN | 0.72 | -0.13 | 0.00 | -0.31 | 0.00 | 1.14 | 4.95 | |||
| MDYG | 0.85 | 0.12 | 0.10 | 0.02 | 1.02 | 1.57 | 6.16 |
Xtrackers Harvest Competitive Analysis
| Better Than Average | Worse Than Peers | View Performance Chart |
Xtrackers Harvest Competition Peer Performance Charts
How to Analyze Xtrackers Harvest Against Peers
Xtrackers Harvest's peer analysis compares Xtrackers Harvest with related companies to put valuation, quality, and risk metrics in context. This helps determine whether recent performance is company-specific or broadly sector-driven. A practical workflow includes:- Set a relevant peer group: Include direct competitors and close alternatives with comparable business exposure.
- Benchmark core financials: Compare profitability, growth, capital structure, and cash flow quality.
- Check valuation dispersion: Review whether Xtrackers Harvest trades at a premium or discount versus peers and why.
- Evaluate risk profile: Compare volatility, drawdowns, and correlation to avoid false diversification assumptions.
- Document the thesis: Record where Xtrackers Harvest leads or lags and what catalysts could close or widen the gap.
Peer Comparison Metrics & Methodology
Competitor benchmarking for Xtrackers Harvest often reveals which operating metrics are genuinely differentiated and which appear similar across the entire peer group. Competitive positioning can change as margins, market share, and balance-sheet flexibility shift.
Reported values for Xtrackers Harvest CSI are derived from fund disclosures and market reference feeds and then standardized by Macroaxis analytics. Refresh times depend on source availability.