PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CNX1.L vs. R2SC.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CNX1.L vs. R2SC.L

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

CNX1.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and R2SC.L (SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CNX1.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while R2SC.L is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CNX1.L returned 22.20%/yr vs 11.57%/yr for R2SC.L. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CNX1.L charges 0.36%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for R2SC.L.

Performance

CNX1.L vs. R2SC.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 SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2SC.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CNX1.L is traded in GBp, while R2SC.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the R2SC.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 17.14% return, which is significantly lower than R2SC.L's 19.34% return. Over the past 10 years, CNX1.L has outperformed R2SC.L with an annualized return of 22.20%, while R2SC.L has yielded a comparatively lower 11.57% annualized return.

CNX1.L

1D
2.47%
1M
0.58%
YTD
17.14%
6M
17.43%
1Y
38.31%
3Y*
23.65%
5Y*
17.86%
10Y*
22.20%

R2SC.L

1D
2.39%
1M
3.94%
YTD
19.34%
6M
15.53%
1Y
42.90%
3Y*
14.70%
5Y*
7.10%
10Y*
11.57%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CNX1.L vs. R2SC.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CNX1.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)		17.14%11.57%28.51%47.71%-25.53%29.50%43.24%33.63%4.62%20.13%
R2SC.L
SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF		19.34%4.66%11.88%12.16%-11.55%15.87%15.73%20.67%-7.45%4.45%

Correlation

The correlation between CNX1.L and R2SC.L is 0.63, 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

0.63

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

0.58

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

0.63

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

0.65

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2014

0.68

The correlation between CNX1.L and R2SC.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.58 (3 years) to 0.68 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CNX1.L vs. R2SC.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CNX1.L
R2SC.L

Technology

60.0%
19.2%

Communication Services

13.5%
2.5%

Consumer Cyclical

10.8%
7.9%

Consumer Defensive

6.4%
2.2%

Healthcare

3.6%
16.3%

Industrials

2.8%
17.9%

Utilities

1.1%
2.7%

Basic Materials

1.0%
4.7%

Energy

0.5%
5.3%

Financial Services

0.2%
15.5%

Real Estate

0.1%
5.9%

Technology

CNX1.L
60.0%
R2SC.L
19.2%

Communication Services

CNX1.L
13.5%
R2SC.L
2.5%

Consumer Cyclical

CNX1.L
10.8%
R2SC.L
7.9%

Consumer Defensive

CNX1.L
6.4%
R2SC.L
2.2%

Healthcare

CNX1.L
3.6%
R2SC.L
16.3%

Industrials

CNX1.L
2.8%
R2SC.L
17.9%

Utilities

CNX1.L
1.1%
R2SC.L
2.7%

Basic Materials

CNX1.L
1.0%
R2SC.L
4.7%

Energy

CNX1.L
0.5%
R2SC.L
5.3%

Financial Services

CNX1.L
0.2%
R2SC.L
15.5%

Real Estate

CNX1.L
0.1%
R2SC.L
5.9%

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)

SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap 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 R2SC.L:
R2SC.L vs. USSC.LR2SC.L vs. XRSG.LR2SC.L vs. ^SP400R2SC.L vs. AVUVR2SC.L vs. WSML.LR2SC.L vs. RTYS.LR2SC.L vs. CUS1.L

Return for Risk

CNX1.L vs. R2SC.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: 8787
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: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank
R2SC.L
R2SC.L Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
R2SC.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
R2SC.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
R2SC.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7777
Omega Ratio Rank
R2SC.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
R2SC.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8282
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. R2SC.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 SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2SC.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.LR2SC.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.45
2.40

+0.05

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.24
3.26

-0.02

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.40

+0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.39

4.80

-1.40

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.86

14.21

-4.35

CNX1.L vs. R2SC.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNX1.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.45, which is comparable to the R2SC.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNX1.L and R2SC.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. R2SC.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNX1.L drawdown since its inception was -27.56%, smaller than the maximum R2SC.L drawdown of -44.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNX1.L and R2SC.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CNX1.LR2SC.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-27.56%

-44.96%

+17.40%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.03%

-8.63%

-2.40%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.56%

-30.00%

+5.44%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-27.56%

-30.00%

+2.44%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-27.56%

-35.03%

+7.47%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.87%

0.00%

-2.87%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.91%

-13.87%

+8.96%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.80%

2.92%

+0.88%

Volatility

CNX1.L vs. R2SC.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CNX1.L) and SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2SC.L) have volatilities of 5.76% and 5.57%, 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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CNX1.LR2SC.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.76%

5.57%

+0.19%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.22%

12.17%

-0.95%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.31%

17.39%

-2.08%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

30.31%

26.09%

+4.22%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.51%

23.88%

+1.63%

CNX1.L vs. R2SC.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNX1.L has a 0.36% expense ratio, which is higher than R2SC.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNX1.L vs. R2SC.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CNX1.L nor R2SC.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

CNX1.L and R2SC.L have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, R2SC.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

R2SC.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.36% for CNX1.L.

CNX1.L is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while R2SC.L is Small Cap Blend Equities. CNX1.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while R2SC.L tracks Russell 2000 TR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.36% for CNX1.L and 0.30% for R2SC.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CNX1.L and R2SC.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