HSPD.L vs. CNDX.L
Compare and contrast key facts about HSBC S&P 500 UCITS ETF (HSPD.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L).
HSPD.L and CNDX.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. HSPD.L is a passively managed fund by HSBC that tracks the performance of the Russell 1000 TR USD. It was launched on May 14, 2010. CNDX.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the NASDAQ-100 Index. It was launched on Jan 26, 2010. Both HSPD.L and CNDX.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: HSPD.L or CNDX.L.
Key characteristics
| HSPD.L | CNDX.L | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 26.43% | 25.21% |
| 1Y Return | 38.38% | 38.12% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 10.00% | 9.58% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 15.78% | 21.21% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 13.05% | 18.26% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 3.31 | 2.24 |
| Sortino Ratio | 4.58 | 3.00 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.63 | 1.40 |
| Calmar Ratio | 4.94 | 2.98 |
| Martin Ratio | 21.46 | 10.47 |
| Ulcer Index | 1.80% | 3.50% |
| Daily Std Dev | 11.65% | 16.32% |
| Max Drawdown | -34.00% | -35.17% |
| Current Drawdown | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Correlation
The correlation between HSPD.L and CNDX.L is 0.85, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
HSPD.L vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with HSPD.L having a 26.43% return and CNDX.L slightly lower at 25.21%. Over the past 10 years, HSPD.L has underperformed CNDX.L with an annualized return of 13.05%, while CNDX.L has yielded a comparatively higher 18.26% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
HSPD.L vs. CNDX.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
HSPD.L has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
HSPD.L vs. CNDX.L - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HSBC S&P 500 UCITS ETF (HSPD.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.
Dividends
HSPD.L vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison
HSPD.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.99%, more than CNDX.L's 0.02% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HSPD.L HSBC S&P 500 UCITS ETF | 0.99% | 1.18% | 1.34% | 0.98% | 1.32% | 1.41% | 1.68% | 1.44% | 1.65% | 1.67% | 1.46% | 1.53% |
CNDX.L iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF | 0.02% | 0.05% | 0.06% | 0.03% | 0.04% | 0.07% | 0.06% | 0.30% | 0.16% | 0.16% | 0.19% | 0.16% |
Drawdowns
HSPD.L vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum HSPD.L drawdown since its inception was -34.00%, roughly equal to the maximum CNDX.L drawdown of -35.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HSPD.L and CNDX.L. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
HSPD.L vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for HSBC S&P 500 UCITS ETF (HSPD.L) is 3.71%, while iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) has a volatility of 4.85%. This indicates that HSPD.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.