HLQD.L vs. CNDX.L
HLQD.L (iShares $ Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged UCITS ETF) and CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HLQD.L is a Global Bonds fund tracking the iShares $ Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged UCITS ETF, while CNDX.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, HLQD.L returned 5.42%/yr vs 15.27%/yr for CNDX.L. At a 0.50 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HLQD.L charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CNDX.L.
Performance
HLQD.L vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, HLQD.L achieves a 2.31% return, which is significantly lower than CNDX.L's 15.91% return.
HLQD.L
- 1D
- 0.21%
- 1M
- -0.07%
- 6M
- 2.17%
- YTD
- 2.31%
- 1Y
- 5.11%
- 3Y*
- 7.50%
- 5Y*
- 5.42%
- 10Y*
- —
CNDX.L
- 1D
- -0.67%
- 1M
- -3.48%
- 6M
- 16.01%
- YTD
- 15.91%
- 1Y
- 28.40%
- 3Y*
- 23.77%
- 5Y*
- 15.27%
- 10Y*
- 20.97%
HLQD.L vs. CNDX.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HLQD.L iShares $ Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged UCITS ETF | 2.31% | 5.47% | 8.15% | 11.14% | 0.41% | 1.25% | 0.54% | 10.77% | -0.71% |
CNDX.L iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF | 15.91% | 19.75% | 26.42% | 56.22% | -33.49% | 27.92% | 48.25% | 37.96% | -9.12% |
Correlation
The correlation between HLQD.L and CNDX.L is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.45 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.41 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.50 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 29, 2018 | 0.50 |
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
HLQD.L vs. CNDX.L — Risk / Return Rank
HLQD.L
CNDX.L
HLQD.L vs. CNDX.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares $ Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged UCITS ETF (HLQD.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.
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.
| HLQD.L | CNDX.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.14 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.02 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.28 | 1.29 | -0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.55 | 2.57 | +0.98 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.38 | 8.61 | +2.77 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
HLQD.L vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum HLQD.L drawdown since its inception was -21.96%, smaller than the maximum CNDX.L drawdown of -35.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HLQD.L and CNDX.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| HLQD.L | CNDX.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.96% | -35.21% | +13.25% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.39% | -11.00% | +9.61% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -3.08% | -22.44% | +19.36% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -6.39% | -35.21% | +28.82% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -35.21% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.34% | -3.87% | +3.53% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.33% | -5.12% | +3.79% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.43% | 3.29% | -2.86% |
Volatility
HLQD.L vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares $ Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged UCITS ETF (HLQD.L) is 0.83%, while iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) has a volatility of 5.89%. This indicates that HLQD.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNDX.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| HLQD.L | CNDX.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.83% | 5.89% | -5.06% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.35% | 13.78% | -11.43% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.30% | 17.32% | -14.02% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.36% | 21.15% | -16.79% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 6.09% | 20.13% | -14.04% |
HLQD.L vs. CNDX.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
HLQD.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.
Dividends
HLQD.L vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither HLQD.L nor CNDX.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
HLQD.L and CNDX.L have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, HLQD.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
HLQD.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CNDX.L.
HLQD.L is categorized as Global Bonds, while CNDX.L is Nasdaq-100. HLQD.L tracks iShares $ Corp Bond Interest Rate Hedged UCITS ETF, while CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for HLQD.L and 0.33% for CNDX.L.
Find the right allocation for HLQD.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