CNDX.L vs. IWQU.L

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) and IWQU.L (iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS) are both exchange-traded funds - CNDX.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while IWQU.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CNDX.L returned 22.01%/yr vs 12.84%/yr for IWQU.L. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CNDX.L charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for IWQU.L.

Performance

CNDX.L vs. IWQU.L - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNDX.L achieves a 20.09% return, which is significantly higher than IWQU.L's 9.80% return. Over the past 10 years, CNDX.L has outperformed IWQU.L with an annualized return of 22.01%, while IWQU.L has yielded a comparatively lower 12.84% annualized return.

CNDX.L

• 1D: 2.77%
• 1M: 4.29%
• YTD: 20.09%
• 6M: 21.26%
• 1Y: 40.37%
• 3Y*: 26.66%
• 5Y*: 17.16%
• 10Y*: 22.01%

IWQU.L

• 1D: 1.00%
• 1M: 3.39%
• YTD: 9.80%
• 6M: 10.71%
• 1Y: 22.55%
• 3Y*: 17.48%
• 5Y*: 10.38%
• 10Y*: 12.84%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CNDX.L iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF	20.09%	19.75%	26.42%	56.22%	-33.49%	27.92%	48.25%	37.96%	-1.08%	31.91%
IWQU.L iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS	9.80%	15.28%	17.17%	25.90%	-19.26%	23.70%	14.95%	29.64%	-7.53%	23.57%

Correlation

The correlation between CNDX.L and IWQU.L is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.86
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.88
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 6, 2014	0.86

The correlation between CNDX.L and IWQU.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors	CNDX.L	IWQU.L
Technology	60.0%	31.2%
Communication Services	13.5%	9.6%
Consumer Cyclical	10.8%	9.2%
Consumer Defensive	6.4%	4.8%
Healthcare	3.6%	8.8%
Industrials	2.8%	10.3%
Utilities	1.1%	2.5%
Basic Materials	1.0%	3.4%
Energy	0.5%	3.9%
Financial Services	0.2%	14.7%
Real Estate	0.1%	1.7%

Return for Risk

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

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

CNDX.L

CNDX.L Risk / Return Rank: 80
CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
CNDX.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
CNDX.L Omega Ratio Rank: 79
CNDX.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
CNDX.L Martin Ratio Rank: 75

IWQU.L

IWQU.L Risk / Return Rank: 65
IWQU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
IWQU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
IWQU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 64
IWQU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
IWQU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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.L vs. IWQU.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) and iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS (IWQU.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.

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	IWQU.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.42	1.93	+0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.35	2.99	+0.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.35	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.65	2.63	+1.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.78	10.90	+1.88

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

The current CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.42, which is comparable to the IWQU.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNDX.L and IWQU.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.

Drawdowns

CNDX.L vs. IWQU.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNDX.L drawdown since its inception was -35.21%, which is greater than IWQU.L's maximum drawdown of -33.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNDX.L and IWQU.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNDX.L	IWQU.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.21%	-33.05%	-2.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.00%	-8.53%	-2.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.44%	-16.09%	-6.35%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.21%	-27.70%	-7.51%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.21%	-33.05%	-2.16%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.40%	0.00%	-0.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.13%	-4.58%	-0.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.15%	2.06%	+1.09%

Volatility

CNDX.L vs. IWQU.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) has a higher volatility of 6.63% compared to iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS (IWQU.L) at 3.29%. This indicates that CNDX.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IWQU.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNDX.L	IWQU.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.63%	3.29%	+3.34%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.98%	9.15%	+3.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.66%	11.64%	+5.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.03%	15.62%	+5.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.14%	15.76%	+4.38%

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

CNDX.L has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is higher than IWQU.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNDX.L vs. IWQU.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNDX.L and IWQU.L in my portfolio?

CNDX.L and IWQU.L have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CNDX.L or IWQU.L?

On fees, IWQU.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNDX.L or IWQU.L?

IWQU.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CNDX.L.

What is the main difference between CNDX.L and IWQU.L?

CNDX.L is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while IWQU.L is Global Equities. CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while IWQU.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for CNDX.L and 0.30% for IWQU.L.