PRFP
-0.10 · -0.85%
£11.21 · LSE
PowerShares Preferred Shares UCITS | Other Bond
Invesco Investment Management Limited · Ireland
AUM:£95.2M
#– of – in Other Bond ETFs
ℹ️
Reward Rating
58
Good
2.92% 1Y return
ℹ️
Risk Rating
31
Low
Risk Assessment
ℹ️

Educational tool only – Scores are based on historical data, holdings and expense metrics for informational purposes. This is not financial advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Always conduct your own research or consult a qualified financial adviser.

Market Performance

PRFP returned +2.9% over the past year, broadly in line with flat market conditions.

Cost Efficiency

Ongoing charge of 0.50% — moderate cost. Consider how fees compound over long holding periods.

What is PRFP?

PowerShares Preferred Shares UCITS tracks its benchmark index, providing diversified exposure across 30 holdings. Its ongoing charge is 0.50%.

Performance Highlights

Investment Breakdown

Modest 1-Year Return
PRFP returned 2.9% over the past year.
Moderate Cost
Ongoing charge of 0.50%. Consider how fees compound over a long holding period.
Broadly Diversified
Top 10 holdings represent just 12.2% of the ETF — exposure spread across many positions.

Openbook Analysis

Performance: Good (58)

The scoring profile reflects moderate historical performance, with a 2.9% 1-year return (historical). The ongoing charge of 0.50% should be considered against long-term return expectations. Risk indicators are moderate, in line with typical market exposure (historical).

For informational and educational purposes only. Not financial advice. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

ETF Information
AUM£95.2M
Ongoing Charge0.50%
Dividend Yield4.99%
Holdings30
Inception DateSept 2017
DomicileIreland
DistributionQuarterly
Index
ProviderInvesco Investment Management Limited
Beta
CategoryOther Bond
CurrencyGBX
Portfolio Impact

How would PRFP affect your portfolio?

Sign in to see exactly what adding this ETF changes — sector exposure, yield, diversification, volatility. Real numbers from your actual holdings.

Sign in
Example preview
6168
+7 points · better diversified
Alternatives
Similar ETFs to compare
CSP1
iShares Core S&P 500
TER 0.07%
1Y+18.1%
AUM£78B
Yield1.3%
VUAG
Vanguard S&P 500 Acc
TER 0.07%
1Y+18.0%
AUM£12B
Yield
SWDA
iShares MSCI World
TER 0.20%
1Y+15.4%
AUM£62B
Yield1.6%
VWRP
Vanguard FTSE All-World
TER 0.22%
1Y+14.8%
AUM£14B
Yield1.8%

Chart Tools

Sign in to overlay your portfolio on the chart.

Sign in
Uses ISF.L (iShares FTSE 100 ETF)
Indicators

Performance Metrics

Historical returns

6M
-4.0%
1Y
+0.8%
3Y
+1.0%
5Y
-5.9%
OpenBook InsightIf you had invested £10,000 in PRFP 5 years ago, it would have fallen to £9,414 — a loss of £586.

Annual Returns

Calendar year performance

PRFP delivered positive returns in 2 of the last 5 calendar years.
YearPRFP
2026 YTD-0.9%
2025-10.0%
2024+5.8%
2023+2.0%
2022-11.0%
CAGR 4yr-3.6%
2/5 positive yearsAvg return: -2.8%Worst year: -11.0% (2022)

Technical Analysis Summary

Automated insights from historical price action and indicators

Technical Regime: MIXED
Trend Strength
67%
Positive
Volatility
7.8%
Low
Momentum
-0.1%
30-day change
Support Level
10.91
Key floor
Key Insights
  • Price is consolidating, with low momentum over the recent period.
  • Low volatility environment with a narrower recent trading range.
  • Monitor key support and resistance levels as part of broader risk assessment.

Reward Rating Breakdown

Our reward rating analyses PRFP's attractiveness using 4 weighted factors. Each factor is scored 0-100, then combined using the weights shown below. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Overall Reward Rating
58
Good REWARD
Data Coverage: %
Factor Framework
Performance
Has the ETF delivered strong historical returns versus similar ETFs?
Cost Efficiency
Is the ETF cheap to own over long periods?
Income
Does it provide attractive and consistent distributions?
Diversification Quality
Does it spread exposure across holdings, sectors, and regions?

📈 Performance

Weight: 30%
35/100

Has the ETF delivered strong historical returns versus similar ETFs? Combines 1/3/5/10-year returns with the Sharpe ratio (risk-adjusted return).

1Y Return
2.92%
Weak
3Y Return
3.48%
Weak
5Y Return
0.01%
Weak
10Y Return
0.00%
Weak
Sharpe Ratio
No Data

Weak historical performance: 1-year return of 2.92%, 3-year annualised 3.48%, 5-year annualised 0.01%. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

💰 Cost Efficiency

Weight: 30%
73/100

Is the ETF cheap to own over long periods? Low ongoing charges compound into meaningful additional returns over a 10-year horizon.

Ongoing Charge
0.50%
Weak
Net Expense Ratio
0.01%
Very Good
Annual Turnover
0.01%
Very Good
Tracking Difference
No Data

Low-cost and efficient structure: ongoing charge of 0.50%, net expense ratio of 0.01%, annual turnover of 0.0%.

💵 Income

Weight: 15%
78/100

Does the ETF provide attractive and consistent distributions? Combines the current yield with distribution frequency.

Distribution Yield
4.99%
Very Good
Distribution Frequency
Quarterly
Good

Attractive income profile: distribution yield of 4.99%, quarterly distributions.

🌐 Diversification Quality

Weight: 25%
55/100

Does the ETF spread exposure across many holdings, sectors, and regions? Concentrated funds can be doing exactly what they're meant to do — treat the score as context, not a verdict.

Holdings
30
Very Weak
Top 10 Concentration
12.21%
Very Good
Top Sector
No Data
Top Region
No Data

Moderate diversification: 30 holdings, top 10 at 12.2%.

Scores are derived from fund-provider disclosures and historical data. For informational and educational purposes only — not investment advice. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

Risk Rating Breakdown

Our risk rating analyses PRFP using 4 weighted factors. A higher score indicates higher risk. This is a framework for understanding exposure — concentrated funds can still be doing exactly what they're meant to do.

Overall Risk Rating
31
Low RISK
Data Coverage: 50%
Factor Framework
Holdings Concentration
How much of the fund sits in its largest positions? Few dominant names mean returns ride on those companies.
Market Exposure
Geographic, sector and cyclical dependencies. High single-country or single-sector weight increases macro sensitivity.
Volatility
Historical price movement, beta and drawdowns — how sharply the fund moves relative to the market.
Income Reliability
How dependable the distribution yield is — cyclical-sector dependency and unusually high yields can flag payout risk.

🎯 Holdings Concentration

Weight: 25%
31/100

How much of the fund sits in a small number of positions? If the top holdings dominate, returns will be driven by those specific companies rather than the broader index.

Top 10 Weight
12.21%
Low Risk
Largest Holding
1.74%
Lower Risk
Number of Holdings
30
Elevated
HHI (weight²)
15
Low Risk

Reasonable spread across positions: top 10 holdings at 12.2%, largest single position at 1.74%, 30 total holdings.

🌍 Market Exposure

Weight: 25%
0/100

How dependent is the fund on a single country, sector or economic cycle? Heavy exposure to one market means a single macro event can drive most of the return.

Top Region
Low Risk
Top Sector
Low Risk
Top 2 Sectors
0.00%
Low Risk
Cyclical Sectors
0.00%
Low Risk

Insufficient exposure data available.

📊 Volatility

Weight: 35%
20/100

How sharply does the fund move day-to-day and how deep have its drawdowns been? High volatility means wider return outcomes over short horizons.

1Y Volatility
5.79%
Low Risk
Beta
No Data
Max Drawdown
No Data

Below-average volatility: 1Y volatility of 5.79% (historical).

💵 Income Reliability

Weight: 15%
55/100

How dependable is the fund's distribution yield? Heavy cyclical-sector exposure or unusually high yields can flag vulnerability to dividend cuts in a downturn.

Current Yield
4.99%
Moderate
Cyclical Sector Exposure
0.00%
Low Risk
Top-Sector Dependency
Low Risk

Income has some cyclical dependency: yield of 4.99%.

Scores are derived from fund-provider disclosures and historical data. For informational and educational purposes only — not investment advice. Risk scoring is model-based and past data does not guarantee future results.