PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
EQGB.L vs. EXCS.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

EQGB.L vs. EXCS.L

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

EQGB.L (Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc) and EXCS.L (iShares MSCI EM ex-China UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - EQGB.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while EXCS.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EQGB.L returned 26.37%/yr vs 23.24%/yr for EXCS.L. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EQGB.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for EXCS.L.

Performance

EQGB.L vs. EXCS.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) and iShares MSCI EM ex-China UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EXCS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

EQGB.L is traded in GBp, while EXCS.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the EXCS.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EQGB.L achieves a 15.56% return, which is significantly lower than EXCS.L's 33.01% return.

EQGB.L

1D
-0.39%
1M
1.58%
YTD
15.56%
6M
14.80%
1Y
34.98%
3Y*
26.37%
5Y*
15.56%
10Y*
—

EXCS.L

1D
0.44%
1M
0.74%
YTD
33.01%
6M
35.91%
1Y
64.27%
3Y*
23.24%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EQGB.L vs. EXCS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
EQGB.L
Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc		15.56%19.59%26.12%53.92%-35.07%-1.37%
EXCS.L
iShares MSCI EM ex-China UCITS ETF USD (Acc)		33.01%26.23%5.43%11.04%-8.40%-25.31%

Correlation

The correlation between EQGB.L and EXCS.L is 0.72, 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

0.72

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

0.60

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 22, 2021

0.56

The correlation between EQGB.L and EXCS.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.56 (all time) to 0.72 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EQGB.L vs. EXCS.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
EQGB.L
EXCS.L

Technology

53.6%
45.1%

Communication Services

15.8%
3.4%

Consumer Cyclical

12.2%
4.5%

Consumer Defensive

7.7%
2.9%

Healthcare

4.2%
2.2%

Industrials

3.1%
8.3%

Utilities

1.4%
2.3%

Basic Materials

1.1%
6.8%

Energy

0.6%
4.2%

Financial Services

0.2%
19.5%

Real Estate

0.1%
1.0%

Technology

EQGB.L
53.6%
EXCS.L
45.1%

Communication Services

EQGB.L
15.8%
EXCS.L
3.4%

Consumer Cyclical

EQGB.L
12.2%
EXCS.L
4.5%

Consumer Defensive

EQGB.L
7.7%
EXCS.L
2.9%

Healthcare

EQGB.L
4.2%
EXCS.L
2.2%

Industrials

EQGB.L
3.1%
EXCS.L
8.3%

Utilities

EQGB.L
1.4%
EXCS.L
2.3%

Basic Materials

EQGB.L
1.1%
EXCS.L
6.8%

Energy

EQGB.L
0.6%
EXCS.L
4.2%

Financial Services

EQGB.L
0.2%
EXCS.L
19.5%

Real Estate

EQGB.L
0.1%
EXCS.L
1.0%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc

iShares MSCI EM ex-China UCITS ETF USD (Acc)

Often compared with EQGB.L:
EQGB.L vs. EQQQ.LEQGB.L vs. CNX1.LEQGB.L vs. VWRP.LEQGB.L vs. QQQEQGB.L vs. XNAQ.LEQGB.L vs. WLDS.LEQGB.L vs. INTL.L
Often compared with EXCS.L:
EXCS.L vs. EMIM.LEXCS.L vs. EIMI.LEXCS.L vs. XDEM.LEXCS.L vs. QQQEXCS.L vs. EEMEXCS.L vs. ^GSPCEXCS.L vs. VFEG.L

Return for Risk

EQGB.L vs. EXCS.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
EQGB.L
EQGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EQGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
EQGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
EQGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
EQGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6666
Martin Ratio Rank
EXCS.L
EXCS.L Risk / Return Rank: 9292
Overall Rank
EXCS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9494
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EXCS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9292
Sortino Ratio Rank
EXCS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9393
Omega Ratio Rank
EXCS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9191
Calmar Ratio Rank
EXCS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9191
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.

EQGB.L vs. EXCS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) and iShares MSCI EM ex-China UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EXCS.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.

EQGB.LEXCS.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.18
3.28

-1.10

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.03
4.04

-1.00

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.38

1.60

-0.23

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.07

5.44

-2.37

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.97

19.54

-8.57

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

EQGB.L vs. EXCS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.18, which is lower than the EXCS.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EQGB.L and EXCS.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

EQGB.LEXCS.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.18

3.28

-1.10

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.74

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.92

0.28

+0.65

Drawdowns

EQGB.L vs. EXCS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EQGB.L drawdown since its inception was -36.77%, which is greater than EXCS.L's maximum drawdown of -35.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EQGB.L and EXCS.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EQGB.LEXCS.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.77%

-35.01%

-1.76%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.33%

-11.76%

+0.43%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.76%

-21.79%

-0.97%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-36.77%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.57%

-6.42%

+2.85%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.45%

-21.02%

+13.57%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.18%

3.28%

-0.10%

Volatility

EQGB.L vs. EXCS.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) is 5.45%, while iShares MSCI EM ex-China UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EXCS.L) has a volatility of 9.64%. This indicates that EQGB.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EXCS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

EQGB.LEXCS.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.45%

9.64%

-4.19%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.15%

17.19%

-5.04%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.02%

19.54%

-3.52%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.98%

24.19%

-3.21%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.24%

24.19%

-2.95%

EQGB.L vs. EXCS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EQGB.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than EXCS.L's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

EQGB.L vs. EXCS.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither EQGB.L nor EXCS.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
EQGB.L
Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%4.16%
EXCS.L
iShares MSCI EM ex-China UCITS ETF USD (Acc)		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

EQGB.L and EXCS.L have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

EXCS.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for EQGB.L.

EQGB.L is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while EXCS.L is Emerging Markets Equities. EQGB.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while EXCS.L tracks MSCI EM NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for EQGB.L and 0.18% for EXCS.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EQGB.L and EXCS.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