PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

CNDX.L vs. QYLP.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) and QYLP.L (Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP) are both Nasdaq-100 funds - CNDX.L tracks the NASDAQ-100 Index while QYLP.L tracks the Cboe Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CNDX.L returned 27.98%/yr vs 9.52%/yr for QYLP.L. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CNDX.L charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for QYLP.L.

Performance

CNDX.L vs. QYLP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP (QYLP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CNDX.L is traded in USD, while QYLP.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the QYLP.L 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 19.65% return, which is significantly higher than QYLP.L's 4.41% return.

CNDX.L

1D
-0.66%
1M
6.81%
YTD
19.65%
6M
18.66%
1Y
39.29%
3Y*
27.98%
5Y*
17.61%
10Y*
21.62%

QYLP.L

1D
-0.86%
1M
1.17%
YTD
4.41%
6M
6.42%
1Y
16.79%
3Y*
9.52%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
CNDX.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF		19.65%19.75%26.45%56.31%-6.39%
QYLP.L
Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP		4.41%2.73%19.38%20.99%-17.36%

Correlation

The correlation between CNDX.L and QYLP.L is 0.54, 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

0.54

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

0.59

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 23, 2022

0.60

The correlation between CNDX.L and QYLP.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors
CNDX.L
QYLP.L

Technology

57.3%
24.2%

Communication Services

14.5%
10.0%

Consumer Cyclical

11.6%
17.6%

Consumer Defensive

6.9%
6.0%

Healthcare

3.8%
7.6%

Industrials

2.8%
8.3%

Utilities

1.3%
3.2%

Basic Materials

1.1%
4.7%

Energy

0.5%
0.2%

Financial Services

0.2%
15.8%

Real Estate

0.1%
2.3%

Technology

CNDX.L
57.3%
QYLP.L
24.2%

Communication Services

CNDX.L
14.5%
QYLP.L
10.0%

Consumer Cyclical

CNDX.L
11.6%
QYLP.L
17.6%

Consumer Defensive

CNDX.L
6.9%
QYLP.L
6.0%

Healthcare

CNDX.L
3.8%
QYLP.L
7.6%

Industrials

CNDX.L
2.8%
QYLP.L
8.3%

Utilities

CNDX.L
1.3%
QYLP.L
3.2%

Basic Materials

CNDX.L
1.1%
QYLP.L
4.7%

Energy

CNDX.L
0.5%
QYLP.L
0.2%

Financial Services

CNDX.L
0.2%
QYLP.L
15.8%

Real Estate

CNDX.L
0.1%
QYLP.L
2.3%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF

Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP

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
Often compared with QYLP.L:
QYLP.L vs. QYLDQYLP.L vs. JEQP.LQYLP.L vs. TDGB.LQYLP.L vs. IUKD.LQYLP.L vs. JEGP.LQYLP.L vs. WINC.ASQYLP.L vs. VUKG.L

Return for Risk

CNDX.L vs. QYLP.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: 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: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
Martin Ratio Rank
QYLP.L
QYLP.L Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
QYLP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6363
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QYLP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
QYLP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
QYLP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
QYLP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) and Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP (QYLP.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.

CNDX.LQYLP.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.52
1.88

+0.64

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.50
2.84

+0.66

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.36

+0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.61

3.27

+0.35

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.03

13.83

-0.80

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.L vs. QYLP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.52, which is higher than the QYLP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNDX.L and QYLP.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

CNDX.LQYLP.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.52

1.88

+0.64

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.84

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

1.07

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.12

0.49

+0.63

Drawdowns

CNDX.L vs. QYLP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNDX.L drawdown since its inception was -35.17%, which is greater than QYLP.L's maximum drawdown of -20.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNDX.L and QYLP.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CNDX.LQYLP.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.17%

-20.02%

-15.15%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.00%

-5.12%

-5.88%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.44%

-20.02%

-2.42%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.17%

—

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.17%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.76%

-1.32%

+0.56%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.30%

-4.51%

-0.79%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.07%

1.21%

+1.86%

Volatility

CNDX.L vs. QYLP.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) has a higher volatility of 4.90% compared to Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP (QYLP.L) at 2.59%. This indicates that CNDX.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QYLP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CNDX.LQYLP.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.90%

2.59%

+2.31%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.88%

7.18%

+4.70%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.79%

8.90%

+6.89%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.87%

14.78%

+6.09%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.07%

14.78%

+5.29%

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

CNDX.L has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is lower than QYLP.L's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNDX.L vs. QYLP.L - Dividend Comparison

CNDX.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QYLP.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.74%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
QYLP.L
Global X NASDAQ 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF Dis GBP		7.74%8.93%8.31%9.56%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

CNDX.L and QYLP.L have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CNDX.L is cheaper at 0.33% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CNDX.L is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for QYLP.L.

CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while QYLP.L tracks Cboe Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for CNDX.L and 0.45% for QYLP.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CNDX.L and QYLP.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