PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CU2G.L vs. CNDX.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CU2G.L vs. CNDX.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CU2G.L (Amundi MSCI USA UCITS USD) and CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CU2G.L is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 TR USD, while CNDX.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CU2G.L returned 15.40%/yr vs 22.74%/yr for CNDX.L. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CU2G.L charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CNDX.L.

Performance

CU2G.L vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Amundi MSCI USA UCITS USD (CU2G.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CU2G.L is traded in GBp, while CNDX.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the CNDX.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CU2G.L achieves a 12.15% return, which is significantly lower than CNDX.L's 20.90% return. Over the past 10 years, CU2G.L has underperformed CNDX.L with an annualized return of 15.40%, while CNDX.L has yielded a comparatively higher 22.74% annualized return.

CU2G.L

1D
-0.01%
1M
8.13%
YTD
12.15%
6M
12.93%
1Y
28.55%
3Y*
16.92%
5Y*
13.05%
10Y*
15.40%

CNDX.L

1D
0.16%
1M
11.63%
YTD
20.90%
6M
19.16%
1Y
42.84%
3Y*
25.37%
5Y*
19.03%
10Y*
22.74%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CU2G.L vs. CNDX.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CU2G.L
Amundi MSCI USA UCITS USD		12.15%6.37%21.31%20.11%-10.63%29.15%16.42%26.58%-0.32%10.75%
CNDX.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF		20.90%11.22%28.66%48.50%-25.54%29.17%43.97%32.82%4.84%20.91%

Correlation

The correlation between CU2G.L and CNDX.L is 0.74, 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

0.74

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

0.81

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

0.83

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

0.84

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2016

0.84

The correlation between CU2G.L and CNDX.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

CU2G.L vs. CNDX.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CU2G.L
CNDX.L

Technology

29.4%
57.3%

Healthcare

13.0%
3.8%

Financial Services

11.7%
0.2%

Consumer Cyclical

11.0%
11.6%

Communication Services

8.8%
14.5%

Industrials

8.4%
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

6.3%
6.9%

Energy

4.4%
0.5%

Real Estate

2.5%
0.1%

Utilities

2.3%
1.3%

Basic Materials

2.3%
1.1%

Technology

CU2G.L
29.4%
CNDX.L
57.3%

Healthcare

CU2G.L
13.0%
CNDX.L
3.8%

Financial Services

CU2G.L
11.7%
CNDX.L
0.2%

Consumer Cyclical

CU2G.L
11.0%
CNDX.L
11.6%

Communication Services

CU2G.L
8.8%
CNDX.L
14.5%

Industrials

CU2G.L
8.4%
CNDX.L
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

CU2G.L
6.3%
CNDX.L
6.9%

Energy

CU2G.L
4.4%
CNDX.L
0.5%

Real Estate

CU2G.L
2.5%
CNDX.L
0.1%

Utilities

CU2G.L
2.3%
CNDX.L
1.3%

Basic Materials

CU2G.L
2.3%
CNDX.L
1.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Amundi MSCI USA UCITS USD

iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF

Often compared with CU2G.L:
CU2G.L vs. CSPX.LCU2G.L vs. CSP1.LCU2G.L vs. VWRD.LCU2G.L vs. SPYL.DECU2G.L vs. 500U.LCU2G.L vs. 500G.LCU2G.L vs. ACWL.L
Often compared with CNDX.L:
CNDX.L vs. QQQCNDX.L vs. EQQQ.DECNDX.L vs. SXRV.DECNDX.L vs. CNX1.LCNDX.L vs. CSPX.LCNDX.L vs. EQQU.LCNDX.L vs. VWRA.L

Return for Risk

CU2G.L vs. CNDX.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CU2G.L
CU2G.L Risk / Return Rank: 6868
Overall Rank
CU2G.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CU2G.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
CU2G.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
CU2G.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5858
Calmar Ratio Rank
CU2G.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5959
Martin Ratio Rank
CNDX.L
CNDX.L Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7979
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7474
Omega Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
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.

CU2G.L vs. CNDX.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi MSCI USA UCITS USD (CU2G.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.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.

CU2G.LCNDX.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.43
2.68

-0.25

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.22
3.58

-0.36

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.44

1.48

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.86

3.80

-0.94

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.34

10.82

-0.48

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

CU2G.L vs. CNDX.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CU2G.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.43, which is comparable to the CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CU2G.L and CNDX.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

CU2G.LCNDX.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.43

2.68

-0.25

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.90

0.95

-0.05

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.98

1.12

-0.14

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.00

1.18

-0.17

Drawdowns

CU2G.L vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CU2G.L drawdown since its inception was -25.96%, smaller than the maximum CNDX.L drawdown of -27.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CU2G.L and CNDX.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CU2G.LCNDX.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-25.96%

-27.74%

+1.78%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.93%

-11.11%

+1.18%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.81%

-24.37%

+2.56%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.81%

-27.74%

+5.93%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-25.96%

-27.74%

+1.78%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.01%

0.00%

-0.01%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.66%

-4.72%

+1.06%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.76%

3.93%

-1.17%

Volatility

CU2G.L vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amundi MSCI USA UCITS USD (CU2G.L) is 3.21%, while iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) has a volatility of 4.91%. This indicates that CU2G.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNDX.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CU2G.LCNDX.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.21%

4.91%

-1.70%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.38%

11.61%

-3.23%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.78%

15.81%

-4.03%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.57%

20.08%

-5.51%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.76%

20.20%

-4.44%

CU2G.L vs. CNDX.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CU2G.L has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

CU2G.L vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CU2G.L nor CNDX.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CNDX.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF		0.00%0.00%0.02%0.05%0.06%0.03%0.04%0.07%0.06%0.30%0.16%0.16%
CU2G.L
Amundi MSCI USA UCITS USD		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

CU2G.L and CNDX.L have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CU2G.L is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CU2G.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CNDX.L.

CU2G.L is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while CNDX.L is Nasdaq-100. CU2G.L tracks Russell 1000 TR USD, while CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for CU2G.L and 0.33% for CNDX.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CU2G.L and CNDX.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