GNDQ.AX vs. F100.AX

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

GNDQ.AX (Betashares Wealth Builder Nasdaq 100 Geared (30-40% LVR) Complex ETF) and F100.AX (Betashares FTSE 100 ETF) are both Global Equities funds from BetaShares. GNDQ.AX is actively managed, while F100.AX is passively managed. Over the past year, GNDQ.AX returned 29.16% vs 11.20% for F100.AX. At a 0.22 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

GNDQ.AX vs. F100.AX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a A$10,000 investment in Betashares Wealth Builder Nasdaq 100 Geared (30-40% LVR) Complex ETF (GNDQ.AX) and Betashares FTSE 100 ETF (F100.AX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GNDQ.AX achieves a 14.66% return, which is significantly higher than F100.AX's 1.78% return.

GNDQ.AX

• 1D: -1.62%
• 1M: -1.89%
• 6M: 13.60%
• YTD: 14.66%
• 1Y: 29.16%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

F100.AX

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: 1.45%
• 6M: 0.85%
• YTD: 1.78%
• 1Y: 11.20%
• 3Y*: 14.72%
• 5Y*: 11.10%
• 10Y*: —

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

GNDQ.AX vs. F100.AX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GNDQ.AX Betashares Wealth Builder Nasdaq 100 Geared (30-40% LVR) Complex ETF	14.66%	15.96%	17.76%
F100.AX Betashares FTSE 100 ETF	1.78%	25.77%	2.38%

Correlation

The correlation between GNDQ.AX and F100.AX is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.26
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 15, 2024	0.22

Return for Risk

GNDQ.AX vs. F100.AX — Risk / Return Rank

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

GNDQ.AX

GNDQ.AX Risk / Return Rank: 36
GNDQ.AX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
GNDQ.AX Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
GNDQ.AX Omega Ratio Rank: 39
GNDQ.AX Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
GNDQ.AX Martin Ratio Rank: 27

F100.AX

F100.AX Risk / Return Rank: 33
F100.AX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
F100.AX Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
F100.AX Omega Ratio Rank: 32
F100.AX Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
F100.AX Martin Ratio Rank: 33

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.

GNDQ.AX vs. F100.AX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Betashares Wealth Builder Nasdaq 100 Geared (30-40% LVR) Complex ETF (GNDQ.AX) and Betashares FTSE 100 ETF (F100.AX). 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.

	GNDQ.AX	F100.AX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.26	1.04	+0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.76	1.55	+0.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.19	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.23	1.33	-0.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.07	4.00	-0.93

GNDQ.AX vs. F100.AX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GNDQ.AX Sharpe Ratio is 1.26, which is comparable to the F100.AX Sharpe Ratio of 1.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GNDQ.AX and F100.AX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

GNDQ.AX vs. F100.AX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GNDQ.AX drawdown since its inception was -30.89%, roughly equal to the maximum F100.AX drawdown of -31.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GNDQ.AX and F100.AX.

Drawdown Indicators

	GNDQ.AX	F100.AX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.89%	-31.78%	+0.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.50%	-8.92%	-14.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-8.92%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.00%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.33%	-1.44%	-3.89%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.90%	-5.91%	-0.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.49%	3.00%	+6.49%

Volatility

GNDQ.AX vs. F100.AX - Volatility Comparison

Betashares Wealth Builder Nasdaq 100 Geared (30-40% LVR) Complex ETF (GNDQ.AX) has a higher volatility of 7.42% compared to Betashares FTSE 100 ETF (F100.AX) at 3.14%. This indicates that GNDQ.AX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than F100.AX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GNDQ.AX	F100.AX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.42%	3.14%	+4.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.55%	9.64%	+7.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.92%	11.48%	+11.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.39%	12.72%	+16.67%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.39%	14.90%	+14.49%

Dividends

GNDQ.AX vs. F100.AX - Dividend Comparison

GNDQ.AX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.49%, less than F100.AX's 2.25% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
F100.AX Betashares FTSE 100 ETF	2.25%	3.09%	1.91%	1.57%	1.62%	2.13%	2.40%
GNDQ.AX Betashares Wealth Builder Nasdaq 100 Geared (30-40% LVR) Complex ETF	1.49%	0.92%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GNDQ.AX and F100.AX in my portfolio?

GNDQ.AX and F100.AX have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.