PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CNX1.L vs. QYLU.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CNX1.L vs. QYLU.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 Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (QYLU.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CNX1.L is traded in GBp, while QYLU.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the QYLU.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 12.52% return, which is significantly higher than QYLU.L's 5.02% return.


CNX1.L

1D
-2.10%
1M
-5.47%
6M
11.30%
YTD
12.52%
1Y
23.82%
3Y*
21.45%
5Y*
15.15%
10Y*
20.27%

QYLU.L

1D
-2.21%
1M
-3.87%
6M
3.39%
YTD
5.02%
1Y
16.20%
3Y*
10.24%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
CNX1.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
12.52%11.57%28.51%47.71%-8.15%
QYLU.L
Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
5.02%-1.93%25.08%16.46%-3.80%

Correlation

The correlation between CNX1.L and QYLU.L is 0.50, 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

0.50

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

0.63

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 22, 2022

0.63

The correlation between CNX1.L and QYLU.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.50 (1 year) to 0.63 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

CNX1.L vs. QYLU.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: 5151
Overall Rank
CNX1.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5353
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNX1.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5050
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNX1.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5151
Omega Ratio Rank
CNX1.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNX1.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4646
Martin Ratio Rank

QYLU.L
QYLU.L Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
QYLU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4747
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QYLU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4747
Sortino Ratio Rank
QYLU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4747
Omega Ratio Rank
QYLU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8383
Calmar Ratio Rank
QYLU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
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. QYLU.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 Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (QYLU.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.


CNX1.LQYLU.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.30

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.37

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.26

1.22

+0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.15

3.36

-1.21

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.00

9.90

-3.89

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

The current CNX1.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.45, which is comparable to the QYLU.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNX1.L and QYLU.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...

Drawdowns

CNX1.L vs. QYLU.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNX1.L drawdown since its inception was -27.56%, which is greater than QYLU.L's maximum drawdown of -22.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNX1.L and QYLU.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CNX1.LQYLU.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-27.56%

-22.59%

-4.97%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.03%

-4.80%

-6.23%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.56%

-22.59%

-1.97%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-27.56%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-27.56%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-7.49%

-4.80%

-2.69%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.90%

-4.77%

-0.13%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.96%

1.63%

+2.33%

Volatility

CNX1.L vs. QYLU.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CNX1.L) has a higher volatility of 6.18% compared to Global X Nasdaq 100 Covered Call UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (QYLU.L) at 5.47%. This indicates that CNX1.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QYLU.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CNX1.LQYLU.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.18%

5.47%

+0.71%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.58%

10.10%

+2.48%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.48%

14.10%

+2.38%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

30.43%

16.17%

+14.26%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.51%

16.17%

+9.34%

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

CNX1.L has a 0.36% expense ratio, which is lower than QYLU.L's 0.45% expense ratio.


Dividends

CNX1.L vs. QYLU.L - Dividend Comparison

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


CNX1.L and QYLU.L have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CNX1.L is cheaper at 0.36% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CNX1.L is cheaper with a 0.36% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for QYLU.L.

CNX1.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while QYLU.L tracks Cboe Nasdaq-100 BuyWrite v2 UCITS Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.36% for CNX1.L and 0.45% for QYLU.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CNX1.L and QYLU.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