CNX1.L vs. EQSG.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CNX1.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and EQSG.L (Invesco Nasdaq-100 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) are both Nasdaq-100 funds - CNX1.L tracks the NASDAQ-100 Index while EQSG.L tracks the Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNX1.L returned 18.83%/yr vs 19.08%/yr for EQSG.L. With a 0.98 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. CNX1.L charges 0.36%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for EQSG.L.

Performance

CNX1.L vs. EQSG.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 Invesco Nasdaq-100 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (EQSG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with CNX1.L having a 19.85% return and EQSG.L slightly higher at 19.91%.

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%

EQSG.L

• 1D: -0.75%
• 1M: 8.13%
• YTD: 19.91%
• 6M: 17.66%
• 1Y: 41.07%
• 3Y*: 24.92%
• 5Y*: 19.08%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CNX1.L iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	19.85%	11.57%	28.51%	47.71%	-25.53%	31.05%
EQSG.L Invesco Nasdaq-100 Swap UCITS ETF Acc	19.91%	11.73%	28.75%	48.14%	-25.92%	32.20%

Correlation

The correlation between CNX1.L and EQSG.L is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.97
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.98
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 26, 2021	0.98

The correlation between CNX1.L and EQSG.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors	CNX1.L	EQSG.L
Technology	57.3%	53.7%
Communication Services	14.5%	15.8%
Consumer Cyclical	11.6%	12.2%
Consumer Defensive	6.9%	7.7%
Healthcare	3.8%	4.2%
Industrials	2.8%	3.1%
Utilities	1.3%	1.4%
Basic Materials	1.1%	1.1%
Energy	0.5%	0.6%
Financial Services	0.2%	0.2%
Real Estate	0.1%	0.1%

Return for Risk

CNX1.L vs. EQSG.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: 78
CNX1.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
CNX1.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
CNX1.L Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CNX1.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
CNX1.L Martin Ratio Rank: 62

EQSG.L

EQSG.L Risk / Return Rank: 37
EQSG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
EQSG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
EQSG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 79
EQSG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
EQSG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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. EQSG.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 Invesco Nasdaq-100 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (EQSG.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.L	EQSG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.82	0.94	+1.89
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.72	1.73	+1.99
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.47	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.76	1.36	+2.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.10	2.21	+8.88
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. EQSG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNX1.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.82, which is higher than the EQSG.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNX1.L and EQSG.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CNX1.L	EQSG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.82	0.94	+1.89
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.98	0.54	+0.44
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	1.16	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.14	0.55	+0.59

Drawdowns

CNX1.L vs. EQSG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNX1.L drawdown since its inception was -27.56%, smaller than the maximum EQSG.L drawdown of -31.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNX1.L and EQSG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNX1.L	EQSG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.56%	-31.87%	+4.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.03%	-30.73%	+19.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.56%	-31.87%	+7.31%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.56%	-31.87%	+4.31%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-27.56%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.63%	-10.55%	+9.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.57%	-13.16%	+8.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.75%	18.86%	-15.11%

Volatility

CNX1.L vs. EQSG.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CNX1.L) and Invesco Nasdaq-100 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (EQSG.L) have volatilities of 4.13% and 4.19%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNX1.L	EQSG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.13%	4.19%	-0.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.38%	10.27%	+0.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.70%	44.57%	-29.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.16%	35.45%	-16.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.44%	34.99%	-15.55%

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

CNX1.L has a 0.36% expense ratio, which is higher than EQSG.L's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNX1.L vs. EQSG.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNX1.L and EQSG.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, CNX1.L and EQSG.L 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, CNX1.L or EQSG.L?

On fees, EQSG.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNX1.L or EQSG.L?

EQSG.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.36% for CNX1.L.

What is the main difference between CNX1.L and EQSG.L?

CNX1.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while EQSG.L tracks Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.36% for CNX1.L and 0.20% for EQSG.L.