PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
AASG.L vs. ANXU.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

AASG.L vs. ANXU.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Asia UCITS ETF USD (AASG.L) and Amundi Nasdaq-100 UCITS USD (ANXU.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

AASG.L is traded in GBp, while ANXU.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the ANXU.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AASG.L achieves a 30.49% return, which is significantly higher than ANXU.L's 20.95% return. Over the past 10 years, AASG.L has underperformed ANXU.L with an annualized return of 12.11%, while ANXU.L has yielded a comparatively higher 22.69% annualized return.


AASG.L

1D
-1.81%
1M
8.00%
YTD
30.49%
6M
33.01%
1Y
59.28%
3Y*
22.95%
5Y*
8.98%
10Y*
12.11%

ANXU.L

1D
0.00%
1M
10.24%
YTD
20.95%
6M
19.24%
1Y
42.83%
3Y*
25.22%
5Y*
19.21%
10Y*
22.69%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AASG.L vs. ANXU.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
AASG.L
Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Asia UCITS ETF USD
30.49%23.83%14.04%0.69%-11.51%-4.50%24.04%14.10%-10.84%30.20%
ANXU.L
Amundi Nasdaq-100 UCITS USD
20.15%11.32%28.95%48.68%-25.30%28.68%41.33%36.74%4.00%20.61%

Correlation

The correlation between AASG.L and ANXU.L is 0.60, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.60

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.53

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.52

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.54

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2016

0.53

The correlation between AASG.L and ANXU.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

AASG.L vs. ANXU.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
AASG.L
ANXU.L

Technology

44.9%
53.7%

Financial Services

14.8%
0.2%

Consumer Cyclical

10.6%
12.2%

Industrials

7.8%
3.1%

Communication Services

7.1%
15.8%

Basic Materials

3.9%
1.1%

Healthcare

3.2%
4.2%

Energy

2.9%
0.6%

Consumer Defensive

2.5%
7.7%

Utilities

1.5%
1.4%

Real Estate

0.7%
0.1%

Technology

AASG.L
44.9%
ANXU.L
53.7%

Financial Services

AASG.L
14.8%
ANXU.L
0.2%

Consumer Cyclical

AASG.L
10.6%
ANXU.L
12.2%

Industrials

AASG.L
7.8%
ANXU.L
3.1%

Communication Services

AASG.L
7.1%
ANXU.L
15.8%

Basic Materials

AASG.L
3.9%
ANXU.L
1.1%

Healthcare

AASG.L
3.2%
ANXU.L
4.2%

Energy

AASG.L
2.9%
ANXU.L
0.6%

Consumer Defensive

AASG.L
2.5%
ANXU.L
7.7%

Utilities

AASG.L
1.5%
ANXU.L
1.4%

Real Estate

AASG.L
0.7%
ANXU.L
0.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

AASG.L vs. ANXU.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

AASG.L
AASG.L Risk / Return Rank: 8989
Overall Rank
AASG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AASG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9090
Sortino Ratio Rank
AASG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9090
Omega Ratio Rank
AASG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
AASG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8686
Martin Ratio Rank

ANXU.L
ANXU.L Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
ANXU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7979
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ANXU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
ANXU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
ANXU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
ANXU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

AASG.L vs. ANXU.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Asia UCITS ETF USD (AASG.L) and Amundi Nasdaq-100 UCITS USD (ANXU.L). 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.


AASG.LANXU.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.54

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.55

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.57

1.47

+0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.15

3.83

+1.31

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

17.77

10.84

+6.93

AASG.L vs. ANXU.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AASG.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.22, which is comparable to the ANXU.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AASG.L and ANXU.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


AASG.LANXU.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.22

2.68

+0.54

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.51

0.96

-0.46

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.66

1.23

-0.57

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.68

1.30

-0.61

Drawdowns

AASG.L vs. ANXU.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AASG.L drawdown since its inception was -34.12%, which is greater than ANXU.L's maximum drawdown of -27.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AASG.L and ANXU.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


AASG.LANXU.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.12%

-27.52%

-6.60%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.46%

-11.12%

-0.34%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.56%

-24.28%

+6.72%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.57%

-27.52%

-1.05%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.12%

-27.52%

-6.60%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.74%

0.00%

-2.74%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.02%

-4.99%

-6.03%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.33%

3.94%

-0.61%

Volatility

AASG.L vs. ANXU.L - Volatility Comparison

Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Asia UCITS ETF USD (AASG.L) has a higher volatility of 8.29% compared to Amundi Nasdaq-100 UCITS USD (ANXU.L) at 5.02%. This indicates that AASG.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ANXU.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


AASG.LANXU.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.29%

5.02%

+3.27%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.55%

11.74%

+3.81%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.34%

15.89%

+2.45%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.70%

20.08%

-2.38%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.56%

21.15%

-2.59%

AASG.L vs. ANXU.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

AASG.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than ANXU.L's 0.13% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

AASG.L vs. ANXU.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither AASG.L nor ANXU.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


AASG.L and ANXU.L have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ANXU.L is cheaper at 0.13% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ANXU.L is cheaper with a 0.13% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for AASG.L.

AASG.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while ANXU.L is Nasdaq-100. AASG.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, while ANXU.L tracks Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for AASG.L and 0.13% for ANXU.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for AASG.L and ANXU.L

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer