PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CEMA.L vs. CNDX.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CEMA.L vs. CNDX.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CEMA.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc) and CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CEMA.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM Asia Index Net, while CNDX.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CEMA.L returned 11.62%/yr vs 21.78%/yr for CNDX.L. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CEMA.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CNDX.L.

Performance

CEMA.L vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEMA.L achieves a 32.32% return, which is significantly higher than CNDX.L's 20.45% return. Over the past 10 years, CEMA.L has underperformed CNDX.L with an annualized return of 11.62%, while CNDX.L has yielded a comparatively higher 21.78% annualized return.

CEMA.L

1D
-1.33%
1M
11.44%
YTD
32.32%
6M
36.37%
1Y
63.33%
3Y*
26.83%
5Y*
8.33%
10Y*
11.62%

CNDX.L

1D
-0.10%
1M
10.73%
YTD
20.45%
6M
19.79%
1Y
41.85%
3Y*
28.56%
5Y*
17.77%
10Y*
21.78%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CEMA.L vs. CNDX.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CEMA.L
iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc		32.32%33.97%12.43%6.65%-21.47%-5.32%28.23%17.50%-15.71%42.34%
CNDX.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF		20.45%19.75%26.45%56.31%-33.45%27.96%48.33%38.07%-1.03%32.36%

Correlation

The correlation between CEMA.L and CNDX.L is 0.74, 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

0.74

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

0.62

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

0.64

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

0.67

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2010

0.61

The correlation between CEMA.L and CNDX.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.61 (all time) to 0.74 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CEMA.L vs. CNDX.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CEMA.L
CNDX.L

Technology

49.6%
57.3%

Financial Services

13.7%
0.2%

Consumer Cyclical

9.9%
11.6%

Industrials

7.2%
2.8%

Communication Services

6.5%
14.5%

Basic Materials

3.4%
1.1%

Healthcare

3.0%
3.8%

Energy

2.5%
0.5%

Consumer Defensive

2.2%
6.9%

Utilities

1.4%
1.3%

Real Estate

0.7%
0.1%

Technology

CEMA.L
49.6%
CNDX.L
57.3%

Financial Services

CEMA.L
13.7%
CNDX.L
0.2%

Consumer Cyclical

CEMA.L
9.9%
CNDX.L
11.6%

Industrials

CEMA.L
7.2%
CNDX.L
2.8%

Communication Services

CEMA.L
6.5%
CNDX.L
14.5%

Basic Materials

CEMA.L
3.4%
CNDX.L
1.1%

Healthcare

CEMA.L
3.0%
CNDX.L
3.8%

Energy

CEMA.L
2.5%
CNDX.L
0.5%

Consumer Defensive

CEMA.L
2.2%
CNDX.L
6.9%

Utilities

CEMA.L
1.4%
CNDX.L
1.3%

Real Estate

CEMA.L
0.7%
CNDX.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.

iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc

iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF

Often compared with CEMA.L:
CEMA.L vs. ESPS.LCEMA.L vs. IKOR.LCEMA.L vs. ISAC.LCEMA.L vs. CSP1.LCEMA.L vs. EIMI.LCEMA.L vs. LCAL.LCEMA.L vs. PAXJ.L
Often compared with CNDX.L:
CNDX.L vs. QQQCNDX.L vs. EQQQ.DECNDX.L vs. SXRV.DECNDX.L vs. CNX1.LCNDX.L vs. CSPX.LCNDX.L vs. EQQU.LCNDX.L vs. VWRA.L

Return for Risk

CEMA.L vs. CNDX.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CEMA.L
CEMA.L Risk / Return Rank: 8686
Overall Rank
CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8989
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8787
Omega Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8484
Martin Ratio Rank
CNDX.L
CNDX.L Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7979
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7474
Omega Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNDX.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.

CEMA.L vs. CNDX.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.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.

CEMA.LCNDX.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
3.00
2.62

+0.38

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.93
3.62

+0.31

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.53

1.45

+0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.58

3.75

+0.82

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

16.97

13.54

+3.43

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CEMA.L vs. CNDX.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.00, which is comparable to the CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEMA.L and CNDX.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

CEMA.LCNDX.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.00

2.62

+0.38

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.41

0.85

-0.44

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.58

1.08

-0.50

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.41

1.12

-0.72

Drawdowns

CEMA.L vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEMA.L drawdown since its inception was -45.51%, which is greater than CNDX.L's maximum drawdown of -35.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEMA.L and CNDX.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CEMA.LCNDX.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-45.51%

-35.17%

-10.34%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.77%

-11.00%

-2.77%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.95%

-22.44%

+2.49%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-41.15%

-35.17%

-5.98%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.51%

-35.17%

-10.34%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.33%

-0.10%

-1.23%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-15.08%

-5.30%

-9.78%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.72%

3.07%

+0.65%

Volatility

CEMA.L vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) has a higher volatility of 9.45% compared to iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) at 4.86%. This indicates that CEMA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CNDX.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CEMA.LCNDX.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.45%

4.86%

+4.59%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

18.12%

11.86%

+6.26%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

21.02%

15.82%

+5.20%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.23%

20.88%

-0.65%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.95%

20.07%

-0.12%

CEMA.L vs. CNDX.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEMA.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEMA.L vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CEMA.L nor CNDX.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CEMA.L
iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
CNDX.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF		0.00%0.00%0.02%0.05%0.06%0.03%0.04%0.07%0.06%0.30%0.16%0.16%

Frequently Asked Questions

CEMA.L and CNDX.L have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CEMA.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CEMA.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CNDX.L.

CEMA.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while CNDX.L is Nasdaq-100. CEMA.L tracks MSCI EM Asia Index Net, while CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for CEMA.L and 0.33% for CNDX.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CEMA.L and CNDX.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