PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

IMIB.L vs. CNDX.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IMIB.L (iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF EUR (Dist)) and CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IMIB.L is a Europe Equities fund tracking the FTSE Italia AllShare TR EUR, while CNDX.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IMIB.L returned 12.13%/yr vs 22.61%/yr for CNDX.L. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IMIB.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CNDX.L.

Performance

IMIB.L vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF EUR (Dist) (IMIB.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

IMIB.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, IMIB.L achieves a 11.33% return, which is significantly lower than CNDX.L's 20.90% return. Over the past 10 years, IMIB.L has underperformed CNDX.L with an annualized return of 12.13%, while CNDX.L has yielded a comparatively higher 22.61% annualized return.

IMIB.L

1D
0.02%
1M
2.98%
YTD
11.33%
6M
14.60%
1Y
28.71%
3Y*
23.85%
5Y*
15.08%
10Y*
12.13%

CNDX.L

1D
0.00%
1M
10.21%
YTD
20.90%
6M
19.02%
1Y
42.53%
3Y*
25.03%
5Y*
19.03%
10Y*
22.61%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IMIB.L
iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF EUR (Dist)		11.33%38.08%8.33%25.41%-7.28%14.64%-0.17%20.68%-15.30%18.23%
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 IMIB.L and CNDX.L is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.46

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

0.39

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

0.44

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

0.46

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 23, 2010

0.44

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

Sectors
IMIB.L
CNDX.L

Financial Services

45.2%
0.2%

Utilities

17.2%
1.3%

Industrials

10.8%
2.8%

Consumer Cyclical

10.0%
11.6%

Energy

8.8%
0.5%

Technology

4.6%
57.3%

Healthcare

1.1%
3.8%

Communication Services

1.1%
14.5%

Basic Materials

0.6%
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

0.5%
6.9%

Real Estate

0.3%
0.1%

Financial Services

IMIB.L
45.2%
CNDX.L
0.2%

Utilities

IMIB.L
17.2%
CNDX.L
1.3%

Industrials

IMIB.L
10.8%
CNDX.L
2.8%

Consumer Cyclical

IMIB.L
10.0%
CNDX.L
11.6%

Energy

IMIB.L
8.8%
CNDX.L
0.5%

Technology

IMIB.L
4.6%
CNDX.L
57.3%

Healthcare

IMIB.L
1.1%
CNDX.L
3.8%

Communication Services

IMIB.L
1.1%
CNDX.L
14.5%

Basic Materials

IMIB.L
0.6%
CNDX.L
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

IMIB.L
0.5%
CNDX.L
6.9%

Real Estate

IMIB.L
0.3%
CNDX.L
0.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF EUR (Dist)

iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF

Often compared with IMIB.L:
IMIB.L vs. ESIF.LIMIB.L vs. SPMOIMIB.L vs. X7PP.LIMIB.L vs. VOOIMIB.L vs. BNKE.LIMIB.L vs. PSRE.LIMIB.L vs. EEIP.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

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IMIB.L
IMIB.L Risk / Return Rank: 5555
Overall Rank
IMIB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IMIB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5454
Sortino Ratio Rank
IMIB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5454
Omega Ratio Rank
IMIB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
IMIB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5454
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF EUR (Dist) (IMIB.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.

IMIB.LCNDX.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.87
2.66

-0.80

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.56
3.56

-0.99

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.47

-0.14

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.78

3.77

-0.99

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.17

10.74

-1.57

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

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

The current IMIB.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.87, which is comparable to the CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IMIB.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

IMIB.LCNDX.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.87

2.66

-0.80

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.83

0.94

-0.11

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.61

1.12

-0.50

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.11

1.17

-1.06

Drawdowns

IMIB.L vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IMIB.L drawdown since its inception was -65.01%, 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 IMIB.L and CNDX.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IMIB.LCNDX.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-65.01%

-27.74%

-37.27%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.28%

-11.11%

+0.83%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.58%

-24.37%

+8.79%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.95%

-27.74%

+0.79%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-37.60%

-27.74%

-9.86%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.64%

0.00%

-0.64%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-31.09%

-4.72%

-26.37%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.12%

3.93%

-0.81%

Volatility

IMIB.L vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF EUR (Dist) (IMIB.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) have volatilities of 4.94% and 4.87%, 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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IMIB.LCNDX.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.94%

4.87%

+0.07%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.23%

11.61%

+0.62%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.32%

15.74%

-0.42%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.12%

20.08%

-1.96%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.71%

20.20%

-0.49%

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

IMIB.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

IMIB.L vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison

IMIB.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.04%, while CNDX.L has not 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%
IMIB.L
iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF EUR (Dist)		0.04%0.04%0.05%0.04%0.04%0.03%0.01%0.03%0.03%0.02%0.03%0.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

IMIB.L and CNDX.L have a correlation of 0.46, 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 0.35% for IMIB.L.

IMIB.L is categorized as Europe Equities, while CNDX.L is Nasdaq-100. IMIB.L tracks FTSE Italia AllShare TR EUR, while CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for IMIB.L and 0.33% for CNDX.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IMIB.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