GLD vs. CNDX.L

Last updated Jun 10, 2026

GLD (SPDR Gold Shares) and CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLD is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM, while CNDX.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GLD returned 12.37%/yr vs 21.02%/yr for CNDX.L. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLD charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CNDX.L.

Performance

GLD vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLD achieves a -1.40% return, which is significantly lower than CNDX.L's 13.47% return. Over the past 10 years, GLD has underperformed CNDX.L with an annualized return of 12.37%, while CNDX.L has yielded a comparatively higher 21.02% annualized return.

GLD

• 1D: -1.63%
• 1M: -9.91%
• YTD: -1.40%
• 6M: 0.87%
• 1Y: 27.45%
• 3Y*: 29.00%
• 5Y*: 17.07%
• 10Y*: 12.37%

CNDX.L

• 1D: -2.45%
• 1M: -0.89%
• YTD: 13.47%
• 6M: 12.34%
• 1Y: 32.47%
• 3Y*: 26.03%
• 5Y*: 16.08%
• 10Y*: 21.02%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GLD vs. CNDX.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GLD SPDR Gold Shares	-1.40%	63.68%	26.66%	12.69%	-0.77%	-4.15%	24.81%	17.86%	-1.94%	12.81%
CNDX.L iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF	13.47%	19.75%	26.42%	56.22%	-33.49%	27.92%	48.25%	37.96%	-1.08%	31.91%

Correlation

The correlation between GLD and CNDX.L is 0.17, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.18
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.10
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.09
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2010	0.02

The correlation between GLD and CNDX.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.02 (all time) to 0.17 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GLD vs. CNDX.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GLD	CNDX.L
Basic Materials	100.0%	1.0%
Communication Services	-	14.5%
Consumer Cyclical	-	11.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	6.6%
Energy	-	0.5%
Financial Services	-	0.2%
Healthcare	-	3.7%
Industrials	-	2.8%
Real Estate	-	0.1%
Technology	-	57.9%
Utilities	-	1.2%

Return for Risk

GLD vs. CNDX.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

GLD

GLD Risk / Return Rank: 30
GLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
GLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
GLD Omega Ratio Rank: 35
GLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
GLD Martin Ratio Rank: 27

CNDX.L

CNDX.L Risk / Return Rank: 67
CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
CNDX.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
CNDX.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
CNDX.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
CNDX.L Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) 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.

	GLD	CNDX.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.03	1.99	-0.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.40	2.79	-1.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.34	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.30	2.94	-1.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.39	10.44	-7.05
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GLD vs. CNDX.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLD Sharpe Ratio is 1.03, which is lower than the CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLD 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GLD	CNDX.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.03	1.99	-0.97
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.95	0.77	+0.18
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.78	1.04	-0.27
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	1.02	-0.43

Drawdowns

GLD vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLD drawdown since its inception was -45.56%, which is greater than CNDX.L's maximum drawdown of -35.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLD and CNDX.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLD	CNDX.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.56%	-35.21%	-10.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.20%	-11.00%	-10.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.20%	-22.44%	+1.24%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.20%	-35.21%	+14.01%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-22.00%	-35.21%	+13.21%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-21.20%	-5.89%	-15.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.16%	-5.13%	-11.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.12%	3.10%	+5.02%

Volatility

GLD vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) have volatilities of 5.73% and 5.93%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLD	CNDX.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.73%	5.93%	-0.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.53%	12.40%	+11.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.87%	16.22%	+10.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.09%	20.96%	-2.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.00%	20.11%	-4.11%

GLD vs. CNDX.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLD has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLD vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLD and CNDX.L in my portfolio?

GLD and CNDX.L have a correlation of 0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GLD or CNDX.L?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLD or CNDX.L?

CNDX.L is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for GLD.

What is the main difference between GLD and CNDX.L?

GLD is categorized as Gold, while CNDX.L is Nasdaq-100. GLD tracks LBMA Gold Price PM, while CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for GLD and 0.33% for CNDX.L.