^XCMP vs. AAPL

Last updated Jul 11, 2026

^XCMP (NASDAQ Composite Total Return Index) is an index, while AAPL (Apple Inc) is a stock. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

^XCMP vs. AAPL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in NASDAQ Composite Total Return Index (^XCMP) and Apple Inc (AAPL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

^XCMP

• 1D: 0.29%
• 1M: 1.55%
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

AAPL

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: 8.31%
• 6M: 21.80%
• YTD: 16.20%
• 1Y: 49.92%
• 3Y*: 19.35%
• 5Y*: 17.39%
• 10Y*: 30.40%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

^XCMP vs. AAPL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
^XCMP NASDAQ Composite Total Return Index	0.07%
AAPL Apple Inc	5.03%

Correlation

The correlation between ^XCMP and AAPL is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 18, 2026	0.33

Return for Risk

^XCMP vs. AAPL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

^XCMP

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

AAPL

AAPL Risk / Return Rank: 90
AAPL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
AAPL Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
AAPL Omega Ratio Rank: 90
AAPL Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
AAPL Martin Ratio Rank: 88

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

^XCMP vs. AAPL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for NASDAQ Composite Total Return Index (^XCMP) and Apple Inc (AAPL). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	^XCMP	AAPL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.05	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.83	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.37	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	3.57	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	8.50	—

Drawdowns

^XCMP vs. AAPL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ^XCMP drawdown since its inception was -7.07%, smaller than the maximum AAPL drawdown of -81.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ^XCMP and AAPL.

Drawdown Indicators

	^XCMP	AAPL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-7.07%	-81.80%	+74.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-13.80%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-33.36%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-33.36%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-38.52%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.93%	-0.28%	-2.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.91%	-29.56%	+26.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	5.79%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	^XCMP	AAPL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	9.95%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	18.77%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.44%	24.07%	-1.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.44%	27.77%	-5.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.44%	29.04%	-6.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ^XCMP and AAPL in my portfolio?

^XCMP and AAPL have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.