EQSG.L vs. CNDX.AS
EQSG.L (Invesco Nasdaq-100 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) and CNDX.AS (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds - EQSG.L tracks the Russell 1000 Growth TR USD while CNDX.AS tracks the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EQSG.L returned 19.08%/yr vs 18.83%/yr for CNDX.AS. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EQSG.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.36%/yr for CNDX.AS.
Performance
EQSG.L vs. CNDX.AS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
EQSG.L is traded in GBp, while CNDX.AS is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the CNDX.AS values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with EQSG.L having a 19.91% return and CNDX.AS slightly higher at 20.01%.
EQSG.L
- 1D
- -0.75%
- 1M
- 8.13%
- YTD
- 19.91%
- 6M
- 17.66%
- 1Y
- 41.07%
- 3Y*
- 24.92%
- 5Y*
- 19.08%
- 10Y*
- —
CNDX.AS
- 1D
- -0.69%
- 1M
- 8.12%
- YTD
- 20.01%
- 6M
- 17.58%
- 1Y
- 40.57%
- 3Y*
- 24.70%
- 5Y*
- 18.83%
- 10Y*
- 22.42%
EQSG.L vs. CNDX.AS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EQSG.L Invesco Nasdaq-100 Swap UCITS ETF Acc | 19.91% | 11.73% | 28.75% | 48.14% | -25.92% | 32.20% |
CNDX.AS iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF | 20.01% | 11.84% | 29.14% | 47.41% | -26.28% | 31.69% |
Correlation
The correlation between EQSG.L and CNDX.AS is 0.94, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.94 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.94 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.94 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 26, 2021 | 0.94 |
The correlation between EQSG.L and CNDX.AS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
EQSG.L vs. CNDX.AS — Risk / Return Rank
EQSG.L
CNDX.AS
EQSG.L vs. CNDX.AS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Nasdaq-100 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (EQSG.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.AS). 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.
| EQSG.L | CNDX.AS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.80 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.89 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.47 | 1.48 | -0.02 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.36 | 3.71 | -2.36 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.21 | 10.83 | -8.62 |
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
| EQSG.L | CNDX.AS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.94 | 2.74 | -1.80 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.54 | 0.96 | -0.42 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 1.13 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.55 | 1.06 | -0.50 |
Drawdowns
EQSG.L vs. CNDX.AS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EQSG.L drawdown since its inception was -31.87%, which is greater than CNDX.AS's maximum drawdown of -27.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EQSG.L and CNDX.AS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EQSG.L | CNDX.AS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -31.87% | -27.59% | -4.28% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -30.73% | -11.00% | -19.73% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -31.87% | -24.96% | -6.91% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -31.87% | -27.59% | -4.28% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -27.59% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -10.55% | -0.69% | -9.86% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -13.16% | -4.64% | -8.52% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 18.86% | 3.80% | +15.06% |
Volatility
EQSG.L vs. CNDX.AS - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco Nasdaq-100 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (EQSG.L) is 4.19%, while iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.AS) has a volatility of 4.62%. This indicates that EQSG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNDX.AS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EQSG.L | CNDX.AS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.19% | 4.62% | -0.43% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.27% | 10.47% | -0.20% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 44.57% | 14.94% | +29.63% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 35.45% | 19.29% | +16.16% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 34.99% | 19.58% | +15.41% |
EQSG.L vs. CNDX.AS - Expense Ratio Comparison
EQSG.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than CNDX.AS's 0.36% expense ratio.
Dividends
EQSG.L vs. CNDX.AS - Dividend Comparison
Neither EQSG.L nor CNDX.AS has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.94, EQSG.L and CNDX.AS move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
On fees, EQSG.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
EQSG.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.36% for CNDX.AS.
EQSG.L tracks Russell 1000 Growth TR USD, while CNDX.AS tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for EQSG.L and 0.36% for CNDX.AS.
Find the right allocation for EQSG.L and CNDX.AS
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