PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CNX1.L vs. EIMI.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CNX1.L vs. EIMI.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CNX1.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and EIMI.L (iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CNX1.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while EIMI.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CNX1.L returned 22.43%/yr vs 11.08%/yr for EIMI.L. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CNX1.L charges 0.36%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for EIMI.L.

Performance

CNX1.L vs. EIMI.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CNX1.L) and iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CNX1.L is traded in GBp, while EIMI.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the EIMI.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNX1.L achieves a 19.85% return, which is significantly lower than EIMI.L's 24.71% return. Over the past 10 years, CNX1.L has outperformed EIMI.L with an annualized return of 22.43%, while EIMI.L has yielded a comparatively lower 11.08% annualized return.

CNX1.L

1D
-0.63%
1M
8.17%
YTD
19.85%
6M
17.68%
1Y
40.87%
3Y*
24.68%
5Y*
18.83%
10Y*
22.43%

EIMI.L

1D
-1.33%
1M
3.18%
YTD
24.71%
6M
25.31%
1Y
49.68%
3Y*
20.19%
5Y*
8.77%
10Y*
11.08%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CNX1.L vs. EIMI.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CNX1.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)		19.85%11.57%28.51%47.71%-25.53%29.50%43.24%33.63%4.62%20.13%
EIMI.L
iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF		24.71%22.75%9.23%5.48%-10.12%0.29%15.31%11.94%-9.08%25.11%

Correlation

The correlation between CNX1.L and EIMI.L is 0.64, 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

0.64

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

0.54

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

0.54

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

0.59

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 10, 2014

0.60

The correlation between CNX1.L and EIMI.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.54 (3 years) to 0.64 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CNX1.L vs. EIMI.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CNX1.L
EIMI.L

Technology

57.3%
35.0%

Communication Services

14.5%
6.4%

Consumer Cyclical

11.6%
9.6%

Consumer Defensive

6.9%
3.3%

Healthcare

3.8%
3.7%

Industrials

2.8%
8.9%

Utilities

1.3%
2.2%

Basic Materials

1.1%
6.9%

Energy

0.5%
3.9%

Financial Services

0.2%
18.4%

Real Estate

0.1%
1.7%

Technology

CNX1.L
57.3%
EIMI.L
35.0%

Communication Services

CNX1.L
14.5%
EIMI.L
6.4%

Consumer Cyclical

CNX1.L
11.6%
EIMI.L
9.6%

Consumer Defensive

CNX1.L
6.9%
EIMI.L
3.3%

Healthcare

CNX1.L
3.8%
EIMI.L
3.7%

Industrials

CNX1.L
2.8%
EIMI.L
8.9%

Utilities

CNX1.L
1.3%
EIMI.L
2.2%

Basic Materials

CNX1.L
1.1%
EIMI.L
6.9%

Energy

CNX1.L
0.5%
EIMI.L
3.9%

Financial Services

CNX1.L
0.2%
EIMI.L
18.4%

Real Estate

CNX1.L
0.1%
EIMI.L
1.7%

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 USD (Acc)

iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF

Often compared with CNX1.L:
CNX1.L vs. CNDX.LCNX1.L vs. EQQQ.LCNX1.L vs. IITU.LCNX1.L vs. EQGB.LCNX1.L vs. QQQCNX1.L vs. XNAQ.LCNX1.L vs. SXRV.DE
Often compared with EIMI.L:
EIMI.L vs. VFEA.DEEIMI.L vs. CSPX.LEIMI.L vs. AVEMEIMI.L vs. SWRD.LEIMI.L vs. VWOEIMI.L vs. VFEG.LEIMI.L vs. AEME.L

Return for Risk

CNX1.L vs. EIMI.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CNX1.L
CNX1.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
CNX1.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8686
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNX1.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNX1.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8383
Omega Ratio Rank
CNX1.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNX1.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
Martin Ratio Rank
EIMI.L
EIMI.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
EIMI.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8080
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EIMI.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
EIMI.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
EIMI.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
EIMI.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.

CNX1.L vs. EIMI.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CNX1.L) and iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.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.

CNX1.LEIMI.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.82
2.83

0.00

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.72
3.67

+0.05

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.50

1.52

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.76

4.78

-1.01

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.10

16.24

-5.14

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

CNX1.L vs. EIMI.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNX1.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.82, which is comparable to the EIMI.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNX1.L and EIMI.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

CNX1.LEIMI.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.82

2.83

0.00

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.98

0.53

+0.46

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

1.16

0.60

+0.56

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.14

0.47

+0.67

Drawdowns

CNX1.L vs. EIMI.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNX1.L drawdown since its inception was -27.56%, smaller than the maximum EIMI.L drawdown of -31.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNX1.L and EIMI.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CNX1.LEIMI.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-27.56%

-31.70%

+4.14%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.03%

-10.58%

-0.45%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.56%

-15.79%

-8.77%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-27.56%

-22.27%

-5.29%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-27.56%

-26.10%

-1.46%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.63%

-2.32%

+1.69%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.57%

-8.72%

+4.15%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.75%

3.12%

+0.63%

Volatility

CNX1.L vs. EIMI.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CNX1.L) is 4.13%, while iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L) has a volatility of 7.59%. This indicates that CNX1.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EIMI.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CNX1.LEIMI.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.13%

7.59%

-3.46%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.38%

15.58%

-5.20%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.70%

17.92%

-3.22%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.16%

16.61%

+2.55%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.44%

18.39%

+1.05%

CNX1.L vs. EIMI.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNX1.L has a 0.36% expense ratio, which is higher than EIMI.L's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNX1.L vs. EIMI.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CNX1.L nor EIMI.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

CNX1.L and EIMI.L have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

EIMI.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.36% for CNX1.L.

CNX1.L is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while EIMI.L is Emerging Markets Equities. CNX1.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while EIMI.L tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index. Their fees differ too: 0.36% for CNX1.L and 0.18% for EIMI.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CNX1.L and EIMI.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