EMCA.L vs. CNDX.L
EMCA.L (iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMCA.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the J.P. Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified Core Index, while CNDX.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMCA.L returned 1.91%/yr vs 15.27%/yr for CNDX.L. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMCA.L charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CNDX.L.
Performance
EMCA.L vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMCA.L achieves a 1.55% return, which is significantly lower than CNDX.L's 15.91% return.
EMCA.L
- 1D
- -0.09%
- 1M
- -0.38%
- 6M
- 1.25%
- YTD
- 1.55%
- 1Y
- 5.99%
- 3Y*
- 6.97%
- 5Y*
- 1.91%
- 10Y*
- —
CNDX.L
- 1D
- -0.67%
- 1M
- -3.48%
- 6M
- 16.01%
- YTD
- 15.91%
- 1Y
- 28.40%
- 3Y*
- 23.77%
- 5Y*
- 15.27%
- 10Y*
- 20.97%
EMCA.L vs. CNDX.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMCA.L iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 1.55% | 8.60% | 6.21% | 7.96% | -12.09% | -0.51% | 7.04% | 13.77% | 0.89% |
CNDX.L iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF | 15.91% | 19.75% | 26.42% | 56.22% | -33.49% | 27.92% | 48.25% | 37.96% | -8.61% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMCA.L and CNDX.L is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.37 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.29 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.34 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 31, 2018 | 0.31 |
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
EMCA.L vs. CNDX.L — Risk / Return Rank
EMCA.L
CNDX.L
EMCA.L vs. CNDX.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMCA.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.
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.
| EMCA.L | CNDX.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.11 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.02 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.29 | 0.00 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.63 | 2.57 | +0.06 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.19 | 8.61 | +1.57 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EMCA.L vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMCA.L drawdown since its inception was -24.69%, smaller than the maximum CNDX.L drawdown of -35.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMCA.L and CNDX.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMCA.L | CNDX.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -24.69% | -35.21% | +10.52% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.21% | -11.00% | +8.79% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -3.58% | -22.44% | +18.86% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.14% | -35.21% | +15.07% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -35.21% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.53% | -3.87% | +3.34% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.05% | -5.12% | +1.07% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.57% | 3.29% | -2.72% |
Volatility
EMCA.L vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares J.P. Morgan $ EM Corp Bond UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMCA.L) is 1.06%, while iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) has a volatility of 5.89%. This indicates that EMCA.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
| EMCA.L | CNDX.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.06% | 5.89% | -4.83% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.26% | 13.78% | -10.52% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.82% | 17.32% | -13.50% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.25% | 21.15% | -15.90% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 8.79% | 20.13% | -11.34% |
EMCA.L vs. CNDX.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMCA.L has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMCA.L vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither EMCA.L nor CNDX.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
EMCA.L and CNDX.L have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CNDX.L is cheaper at 0.33% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CNDX.L is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EMCA.L.
EMCA.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while CNDX.L is Nasdaq-100. EMCA.L tracks J.P. Morgan CEMBI Broad Diversified Core Index, while CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EMCA.L and 0.33% for CNDX.L.
Find the right allocation for EMCA.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