CNDX.L vs. IS3Q.DE
CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) and IS3Q.DE (iShares Edge MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS ETF (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - CNDX.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while IS3Q.DE is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI World Sector Neutral Quality. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CNDX.L returned 21.60%/yr vs 12.74%/yr for IS3Q.DE. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CNDX.L charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for IS3Q.DE.
Performance
CNDX.L vs. IS3Q.DE - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
CNDX.L is traded in USD, while IS3Q.DE is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the IS3Q.DE values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CNDX.L achieves a 16.86% return, which is significantly higher than IS3Q.DE's 8.58% return. Over the past 10 years, CNDX.L has outperformed IS3Q.DE with an annualized return of 21.60%, while IS3Q.DE has yielded a comparatively lower 12.74% annualized return.
CNDX.L
- 1D
- 3.01%
- 1M
- 1.60%
- YTD
- 16.86%
- 6M
- 18.12%
- 1Y
- 35.84%
- 3Y*
- 26.24%
- 5Y*
- 16.67%
- 10Y*
- 21.60%
IS3Q.DE
- 1D
- 1.20%
- 1M
- 2.43%
- YTD
- 8.58%
- 6M
- 9.88%
- 1Y
- 20.38%
- 3Y*
- 17.80%
- 5Y*
- 10.25%
- 10Y*
- 12.74%
CNDX.L vs. IS3Q.DE - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNDX.L iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF | 16.86% | 19.75% | 26.42% | 56.22% | -33.49% | 27.92% | 48.25% | 37.96% | -1.08% | 31.91% |
IS3Q.DE iShares Edge MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS ETF (Acc) | 8.58% | 16.05% | 16.71% | 25.54% | -19.52% | 23.68% | 14.64% | 31.11% | -8.01% | 23.66% |
Correlation
The correlation between CNDX.L and IS3Q.DE is 0.75, 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 | 0.75 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.79 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.82 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.79 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 6, 2014 | 0.79 |
The correlation between CNDX.L and IS3Q.DE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
CNDX.L vs. IS3Q.DE — Risk / Return Rank
CNDX.L
IS3Q.DE
CNDX.L vs. IS3Q.DE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) and iShares Edge MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS ETF (Acc) (IS3Q.DE). 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.
| CNDX.L | IS3Q.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.40 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.37 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.38 | 1.31 | +0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.24 | 2.33 | +0.91 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.35 | 9.79 | +1.55 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CNDX.L vs. IS3Q.DE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CNDX.L drawdown since its inception was -35.21%, which is greater than IS3Q.DE's maximum drawdown of -32.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNDX.L and IS3Q.DE.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CNDX.L | IS3Q.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -35.21% | -32.79% | -2.42% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.00% | -8.70% | -2.30% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -22.44% | -16.89% | -5.55% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -35.21% | -27.71% | -7.50% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -35.21% | -32.79% | -2.42% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.08% | -0.05% | -3.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.13% | -8.10% | +2.97% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.15% | 2.08% | +1.07% |
Volatility
CNDX.L vs. IS3Q.DE - Volatility Comparison
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) has a higher volatility of 6.21% compared to iShares Edge MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS ETF (Acc) (IS3Q.DE) at 2.88%. This indicates that CNDX.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IS3Q.DE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CNDX.L | IS3Q.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.21% | 2.88% | +3.33% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.72% | 8.57% | +4.15% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.44% | 11.47% | +4.97% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.99% | 15.44% | +5.55% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.12% | 16.48% | +3.64% |
CNDX.L vs. IS3Q.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison
CNDX.L has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is higher than IS3Q.DE's 0.30% expense ratio.
Dividends
CNDX.L vs. IS3Q.DE - Dividend Comparison
Neither CNDX.L nor IS3Q.DE has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
CNDX.L and IS3Q.DE have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IS3Q.DE is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IS3Q.DE is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CNDX.L.
CNDX.L is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while IS3Q.DE is Global Equities. CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while IS3Q.DE tracks MSCI World Sector Neutral Quality. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for CNDX.L and 0.30% for IS3Q.DE.
Find the right allocation for CNDX.L and IS3Q.DE
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