CNDX.AS vs. R1GR.AS

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CNDX.AS (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) and R1GR.AS (iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CNDX.AS is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while R1GR.AS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth UCITS 30/18 Capped index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, CNDX.AS returned 37.78% vs 23.23% for R1GR.AS. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CNDX.AS charges 0.36%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for R1GR.AS.

Performance

CNDX.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a €10,000 investment in iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.AS) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (R1GR.AS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CNDX.AS is traded in EUR, while R1GR.AS is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the R1GR.AS values have been converted to EUR using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNDX.AS achieves a 20.95% return, which is significantly higher than R1GR.AS's 7.67% return.

CNDX.AS

• 1D: -0.77%
• 1M: 9.31%
• YTD: 20.95%
• 6M: 19.45%
• 1Y: 37.78%
• 3Y*: 24.53%
• 5Y*: 18.67%
• 10Y*: 21.25%

R1GR.AS

• 1D: -0.31%
• 1M: 5.93%
• YTD: 7.67%
• 6M: 6.91%
• 1Y: 23.23%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CNDX.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CNDX.AS iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF	20.95%	6.16%	35.29%	6.36%
R1GR.AS iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF	7.67%	3.62%	43.99%	6.17%

Correlation

The correlation between CNDX.AS and R1GR.AS is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2023	0.87

The correlation between CNDX.AS and R1GR.AS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CNDX.AS vs. R1GR.AS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CNDX.AS

CNDX.AS Risk / Return Rank: 71
CNDX.AS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
CNDX.AS Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
CNDX.AS Omega Ratio Rank: 73
CNDX.AS Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
CNDX.AS Martin Ratio Rank: 62

R1GR.AS

R1GR.AS Risk / Return Rank: 42
R1GR.AS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
R1GR.AS Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
R1GR.AS Omega Ratio Rank: 46
R1GR.AS Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
R1GR.AS Martin Ratio Rank: 35

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.

CNDX.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.AS) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (R1GR.AS). 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.

	CNDX.AS	R1GR.AS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.41	1.44	+0.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.20	2.04	+1.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.26	+0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.70	1.56	+2.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.01	4.39	+6.62
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CNDX.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNDX.AS Sharpe Ratio is 2.41, which is higher than the R1GR.AS Sharpe Ratio of 1.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNDX.AS and R1GR.AS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CNDX.AS	R1GR.AS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.41	1.44	+0.97
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.93	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	1.07	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.03	1.15	-0.12

Drawdowns

CNDX.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNDX.AS drawdown since its inception was -31.21%, which is greater than R1GR.AS's maximum drawdown of -27.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNDX.AS and R1GR.AS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNDX.AS	R1GR.AS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.21%	-27.06%	-4.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.06%	-14.67%	+4.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.57%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-31.21%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-31.21%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.77%	-1.39%	+0.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.45%	-4.95%	-0.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.41%	5.26%	-1.85%

Volatility

CNDX.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Volatility Comparison

iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.AS) has a higher volatility of 4.35% compared to iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (R1GR.AS) at 4.11%. This indicates that CNDX.AS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than R1GR.AS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNDX.AS	R1GR.AS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.35%	4.11%	+0.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.74%	11.20%	-0.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.45%	15.90%	-0.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.72%	19.57%	+0.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.61%	19.57%	+0.04%

CNDX.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNDX.AS has a 0.36% expense ratio, which is higher than R1GR.AS's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNDX.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Dividend Comparison

Neither CNDX.AS nor R1GR.AS has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNDX.AS and R1GR.AS in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, CNDX.AS and R1GR.AS move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, CNDX.AS or R1GR.AS?

On fees, R1GR.AS is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNDX.AS or R1GR.AS?

R1GR.AS is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.36% for CNDX.AS.

What is the main difference between CNDX.AS and R1GR.AS?

CNDX.AS is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while R1GR.AS is Large Cap Growth Equities. CNDX.AS tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while R1GR.AS tracks Russell 1000 Growth UCITS 30/18 Capped index. Their fees differ too: 0.36% for CNDX.AS and 0.18% for R1GR.AS.