EMIM.L vs. CNDX.L
EMIM.L (iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc)) and CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMIM.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM NR USD, while CNDX.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EMIM.L returned 11.09%/yr vs 22.61%/yr for CNDX.L. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMIM.L charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CNDX.L.
Performance
EMIM.L vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
EMIM.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, EMIM.L achieves a 24.23% return, which is significantly higher than CNDX.L's 20.90% return. Over the past 10 years, EMIM.L has underperformed CNDX.L with an annualized return of 11.09%, while CNDX.L has yielded a comparatively higher 22.61% annualized return.
EMIM.L
- 1D
- -1.35%
- 1M
- 5.54%
- YTD
- 24.23%
- 6M
- 26.48%
- 1Y
- 50.85%
- 3Y*
- 20.15%
- 5Y*
- 8.76%
- 10Y*
- 11.09%
CNDX.L
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 10.21%
- YTD
- 20.90%
- 6M
- 19.02%
- 1Y
- 42.53%
- 3Y*
- 25.03%
- 5Y*
- 19.03%
- 10Y*
- 22.61%
EMIM.L vs. CNDX.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMIM.L iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) | 24.23% | 23.35% | 9.18% | 4.93% | -10.17% | 0.74% | 14.91% | 12.69% | -9.32% | 24.72% |
CNDX.L iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF | 20.14% | 11.22% | 28.66% | 48.50% | -25.54% | 29.17% | 43.97% | 32.82% | 4.84% | 20.91% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMIM.L and CNDX.L is 0.65, 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 | 0.65 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.55 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.54 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.61 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 10, 2014 | 0.62 |
The correlation between EMIM.L and CNDX.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.54 (5 years) to 0.65 (1 year), 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
EMIM.L vs. CNDX.L — Risk / Return Rank
EMIM.L
CNDX.L
EMIM.L vs. CNDX.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (EMIM.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.
| EMIM.L | CNDX.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.37 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.36 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.57 | 1.47 | +0.10 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.63 | 3.77 | +0.86 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 16.57 | 10.74 | +5.83 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| EMIM.L | CNDX.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.04 | 2.66 | +0.37 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.55 | 0.94 | -0.39 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.62 | 1.12 | -0.49 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.49 | 1.17 | -0.69 |
Drawdowns
EMIM.L vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMIM.L drawdown since its inception was -31.70%, which is greater than CNDX.L's maximum drawdown of -27.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMIM.L and CNDX.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMIM.L | CNDX.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -31.70% | -27.74% | -3.96% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.92% | -11.11% | +0.19% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.56% | -24.37% | +8.81% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -21.98% | -27.74% | +5.76% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -26.46% | -27.74% | +1.28% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.39% | 0.00% | -2.39% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.71% | -4.72% | -3.99% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.06% | 3.93% | -0.87% |
Volatility
EMIM.L vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (EMIM.L) has a higher volatility of 7.03% compared to iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) at 4.87%. This indicates that EMIM.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CNDX.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMIM.L | CNDX.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.03% | 4.87% | +2.16% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.14% | 11.61% | +2.53% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.67% | 15.74% | +0.93% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.82% | 20.08% | -4.26% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.81% | 20.20% | -2.39% |
EMIM.L vs. CNDX.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMIM.L has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMIM.L vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither EMIM.L nor CNDX.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
EMIM.L iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) | 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
EMIM.L and CNDX.L have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, EMIM.L is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
EMIM.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CNDX.L.
EMIM.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while CNDX.L is Nasdaq-100. EMIM.L tracks MSCI EM NR USD, while CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for EMIM.L and 0.33% for CNDX.L.
Find the right allocation for EMIM.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