PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
HMAF.L vs. CNDX.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

HMAF.L vs. CNDX.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

HMAF.L (HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD) and CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HMAF.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, while CNDX.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, HMAF.L returned 12.09%/yr vs 22.53%/yr for CNDX.L. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. HMAF.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CNDX.L.

Performance

HMAF.L vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (HMAF.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

HMAF.L is traded in GBP, while CNDX.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the CNDX.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HMAF.L achieves a 36.25% return, which is significantly higher than CNDX.L's 20.14% return. Over the past 10 years, HMAF.L has underperformed CNDX.L with an annualized return of 12.09%, while CNDX.L has yielded a comparatively higher 22.53% annualized return.

HMAF.L

1D
-2.32%
1M
8.81%
YTD
36.25%
6M
39.16%
1Y
73.09%
3Y*
25.41%
5Y*
9.34%
10Y*
12.09%

CNDX.L

1D
-0.66%
1M
9.52%
YTD
20.14%
6M
18.27%
1Y
41.64%
3Y*
24.77%
5Y*
18.88%
10Y*
22.53%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

HMAF.L vs. CNDX.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
HMAF.L
HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD		36.25%31.76%13.79%-3.80%-12.60%-7.57%21.71%13.88%-10.05%29.41%
CNDX.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF		20.14%11.22%28.66%48.50%-25.54%29.17%43.97%32.82%4.84%20.91%

Correlation

The correlation between HMAF.L and CNDX.L is 0.63, 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

0.63

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

0.54

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.52

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.60

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 30, 2013

0.60

The correlation between HMAF.L and CNDX.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.52 (5 years) to 0.63 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

HMAF.L vs. CNDX.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
HMAF.L
CNDX.L

Technology

51.5%
57.3%

Financial Services

14.9%
0.2%

Consumer Cyclical

9.3%
11.6%

Industrials

7.3%
2.8%

Communication Services

6.5%
14.5%

Basic Materials

2.4%
1.1%

Healthcare

2.2%
3.8%

Real Estate

1.6%
0.1%

Consumer Defensive

1.6%
6.9%

Energy

1.4%
0.5%

Utilities

1.3%
1.3%

Technology

HMAF.L
51.5%
CNDX.L
57.3%

Financial Services

HMAF.L
14.9%
CNDX.L
0.2%

Consumer Cyclical

HMAF.L
9.3%
CNDX.L
11.6%

Industrials

HMAF.L
7.3%
CNDX.L
2.8%

Communication Services

HMAF.L
6.5%
CNDX.L
14.5%

Basic Materials

HMAF.L
2.4%
CNDX.L
1.1%

Healthcare

HMAF.L
2.2%
CNDX.L
3.8%

Real Estate

HMAF.L
1.6%
CNDX.L
0.1%

Consumer Defensive

HMAF.L
1.6%
CNDX.L
6.9%

Energy

HMAF.L
1.4%
CNDX.L
0.5%

Utilities

HMAF.L
1.3%
CNDX.L
1.3%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD

iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF

Often compared with HMAF.L:
HMAF.L vs. SPYHMAF.L vs. CP9G.LHMAF.L vs. HSTC.LHMAF.L vs. CP9U.LHMAF.L vs. H50E.LHMAF.L vs. FRIN.LHMAF.L vs. HMUD.L
Often compared with CNDX.L:
CNDX.L vs. QQQCNDX.L vs. EQQQ.DECNDX.L vs. SXRV.DECNDX.L vs. CNX1.LCNDX.L vs. CSPX.LCNDX.L vs. EQQU.LCNDX.L vs. VWRA.L

Return for Risk

HMAF.L vs. CNDX.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
HMAF.L
HMAF.L Risk / Return Rank: 9494
Overall Rank
HMAF.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9595
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HMAF.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9494
Sortino Ratio Rank
HMAF.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9494
Omega Ratio Rank
HMAF.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
HMAF.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9292
Martin Ratio Rank
CNDX.L
CNDX.L Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7979
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7474
Omega Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (HMAF.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.

HMAF.LCNDX.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
3.84
2.61

+1.24

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
4.74
3.49

+1.25

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.67

1.46

+0.21

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

6.85

3.70

+3.15

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

22.75

10.51

+12.24

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

HMAF.L vs. CNDX.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HMAF.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.84, which is higher than the CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HMAF.L 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.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

HMAF.LCNDX.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.84

2.61

+1.24

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.49

0.94

-0.45

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.64

1.11

-0.48

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.54

1.17

-0.63

Drawdowns

HMAF.L vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HMAF.L drawdown since its inception was -39.58%, which is greater than CNDX.L's maximum drawdown of -27.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMAF.L and CNDX.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

HMAF.LCNDX.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-39.58%

-27.74%

-11.84%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.62%

-11.11%

+0.49%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.52%

-24.37%

+4.85%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-34.30%

-27.74%

-6.56%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.58%

-27.74%

-11.84%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.05%

-0.66%

-2.39%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.55%

-4.72%

-7.83%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.20%

3.93%

-0.73%

Volatility

HMAF.L vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison

HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (HMAF.L) has a higher volatility of 8.65% compared to iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) at 4.89%. This indicates that HMAF.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CNDX.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

HMAF.LCNDX.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.65%

4.89%

+3.76%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.96%

11.60%

+4.36%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.95%

15.74%

+3.21%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.03%

20.08%

-1.05%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.99%

20.20%

-1.21%

HMAF.L vs. CNDX.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

HMAF.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

HMAF.L vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison

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

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CNDX.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF		0.00%0.00%0.02%0.05%0.06%0.03%0.04%0.07%0.06%0.30%0.16%0.16%
HMAF.L
HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%1.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

HMAF.L and CNDX.L have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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.

CNDX.L is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for HMAF.L.

HMAF.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while CNDX.L is Nasdaq-100. HMAF.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, while CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. They also come from different issuers: HSBC and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for HMAF.L and 0.33% for CNDX.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for HMAF.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