PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CSPX.AS vs. UIFS.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CSPX.AS vs. UIFS.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a €10,000 investment in iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSPX.AS) and iShares S&P 500 Financials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (UIFS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CSPX.AS is traded in EUR, while UIFS.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the UIFS.L values have been converted to EUR using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CSPX.AS achieves a 10.08% return, which is significantly higher than UIFS.L's -3.12% return. Over the past 10 years, CSPX.AS has outperformed UIFS.L with an annualized return of 14.76%, while UIFS.L has yielded a comparatively lower 12.23% annualized return.


CSPX.AS

1D
-0.23%
1M
2.55%
YTD
10.08%
6M
9.69%
1Y
23.48%
3Y*
18.44%
5Y*
14.39%
10Y*
14.76%

UIFS.L

1D
-0.02%
1M
4.01%
YTD
-3.12%
6M
-0.70%
1Y
2.09%
3Y*
15.24%
5Y*
9.33%
10Y*
12.23%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CSPX.AS vs. UIFS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CSPX.AS
iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF
10.08%4.00%33.87%22.28%-14.24%40.26%7.72%32.99%-0.36%7.13%
UIFS.L
iShares S&P 500 Financials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
-3.12%1.49%38.62%8.37%-5.58%47.06%-11.67%35.13%-10.52%7.60%

Correlation

The correlation between CSPX.AS and UIFS.L is 0.53, 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

0.53

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

0.59

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

0.66

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

0.69

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 20, 2015

0.70

The correlation between CSPX.AS and UIFS.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.53 (1 year) to 0.70 (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

CSPX.AS vs. UIFS.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CSPX.AS
CSPX.AS Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
CSPX.AS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CSPX.AS Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
CSPX.AS Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
CSPX.AS Calmar Ratio Rank: 7272
Calmar Ratio Rank
CSPX.AS Martin Ratio Rank: 7070
Martin Ratio Rank

UIFS.L
UIFS.L Risk / Return Rank: 1414
Overall Rank
UIFS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1515
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UIFS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1414
Sortino Ratio Rank
UIFS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1414
Omega Ratio Rank
UIFS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1414
Calmar Ratio Rank
UIFS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1414
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.

CSPX.AS vs. UIFS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSPX.AS) and iShares S&P 500 Financials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (UIFS.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.


CSPX.ASUIFS.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.90

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+2.50

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.38

1.04

+0.34

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.26

0.16

+3.10

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.64

0.37

+11.27

CSPX.AS vs. UIFS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CSPX.AS Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is higher than the UIFS.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CSPX.AS and UIFS.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


CSPX.ASUIFS.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.05

0.15

+1.90

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.93

0.41

+0.53

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.90

0.53

+0.38

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.91

0.24

+0.67

Drawdowns

CSPX.AS vs. UIFS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CSPX.AS drawdown since its inception was -33.65%, smaller than the maximum UIFS.L drawdown of -50.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CSPX.AS and UIFS.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CSPX.ASUIFS.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.65%

-50.23%

+16.58%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.11%

-12.92%

+5.81%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.37%

-21.06%

-2.31%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-23.37%

-21.06%

-2.31%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-33.65%

-41.82%

+8.17%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.68%

-8.60%

+6.92%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.74%

-14.10%

+10.36%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.99%

5.60%

-3.61%

Volatility

CSPX.AS vs. UIFS.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSPX.AS) is 2.80%, while iShares S&P 500 Financials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (UIFS.L) has a volatility of 4.29%. This indicates that CSPX.AS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UIFS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CSPX.ASUIFS.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.80%

4.29%

-1.49%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.44%

10.56%

-3.12%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.31%

14.36%

-3.05%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.15%

22.97%

-7.82%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.06%

23.11%

-7.05%

CSPX.AS vs. UIFS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CSPX.AS has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than UIFS.L's 0.15% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

CSPX.AS vs. UIFS.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CSPX.AS nor UIFS.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


CSPX.AS and UIFS.L have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CSPX.AS is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CSPX.AS is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for UIFS.L.

CSPX.AS is categorized as S&P 500, while UIFS.L is Financials Equities. CSPX.AS tracks S&P 500 Index, while UIFS.L tracks S&P 500 Capped 35/20 Financials Index. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for CSPX.AS and 0.15% for UIFS.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CSPX.AS and UIFS.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