PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

INRG.L vs. CNDX.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

INRG.L (iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - INRG.L is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD, while CNDX.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, INRG.L returned 12.64%/yr vs 22.61%/yr for CNDX.L. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. INRG.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CNDX.L.

Performance

INRG.L vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.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

INRG.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, INRG.L achieves a 39.09% return, which is significantly higher than CNDX.L's 20.90% return. Over the past 10 years, INRG.L has underperformed CNDX.L with an annualized return of 12.64%, while CNDX.L has yielded a comparatively higher 22.61% annualized return.

INRG.L

1D
-2.01%
1M
8.39%
YTD
39.09%
6M
35.51%
1Y
82.63%
3Y*
5.64%
5Y*
2.72%
10Y*
12.64%

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)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
INRG.L
iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)		39.09%34.75%-24.39%-23.83%5.52%-23.71%135.23%39.22%-2.66%10.46%
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 INRG.L and CNDX.L is 0.50, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.50

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

0.35

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

0.44

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

0.52

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2010

0.48

The correlation between INRG.L and CNDX.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.35 (3 years) to 0.52 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors
INRG.L
CNDX.L

Utilities

33.7%
1.3%

Industrials

28.3%
2.8%

Energy

24.7%
0.5%

Technology

10.5%
57.3%

Basic Materials

1.3%
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

0.1%
11.6%

Communication Services

-

14.5%

Consumer Defensive

-

6.9%

Financial Services

-

0.2%

Healthcare

-

3.8%

Real Estate

-

0.1%

Utilities

INRG.L
33.7%
CNDX.L
1.3%

Industrials

INRG.L
28.3%
CNDX.L
2.8%

Energy

INRG.L
24.7%
CNDX.L
0.5%

Technology

INRG.L
10.5%
CNDX.L
57.3%

Basic Materials

INRG.L
1.3%
CNDX.L
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

INRG.L
0.1%
CNDX.L
11.6%

Communication Services

INRG.L

-

CNDX.L
14.5%

Consumer Defensive

INRG.L

-

CNDX.L
6.9%

Financial Services

INRG.L

-

CNDX.L
0.2%

Healthcare

INRG.L

-

CNDX.L
3.8%

Real Estate

INRG.L

-

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 Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)

iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF

Often compared with INRG.L:
INRG.L vs. ICLNINRG.L vs. TANINRG.L vs. RENW.DEINRG.L vs. V3AB.LINRG.L vs. ACESINRG.L vs. ESIH.LINRG.L vs. RENG.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

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
INRG.L
INRG.L Risk / Return Rank: 9191
Overall Rank
INRG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9393
Sharpe Ratio Rank
INRG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9292
Sortino Ratio Rank
INRG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8787
Omega Ratio Rank
INRG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
INRG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8989
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.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.

INRG.LCNDX.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
3.42
2.66

+0.75

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
4.38
3.56

+0.82

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.53

1.47

+0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

6.64

3.77

+2.87

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

19.87

10.74

+9.13

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

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

The current INRG.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.42, which is comparable to the CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of INRG.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

INRG.LCNDX.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.42

2.66

+0.75

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.11

0.94

-0.84

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.50

1.12

-0.62

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.02

1.17

-1.16

Drawdowns

INRG.L vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum INRG.L drawdown since its inception was -85.09%, 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 INRG.L and CNDX.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

INRG.LCNDX.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-85.09%

-27.74%

-57.35%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.38%

-11.11%

-1.27%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-44.29%

-24.37%

-19.92%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-57.38%

-27.74%

-29.64%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-65.47%

-27.74%

-37.73%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-27.35%

0.00%

-27.35%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-56.54%

-4.72%

-51.82%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.15%

3.93%

+0.22%

Volatility

INRG.L vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.L) has a higher volatility of 9.58% compared to iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) at 4.87%. This indicates that INRG.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

INRG.LCNDX.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.58%

4.87%

+4.71%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.61%

11.61%

+6.00%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

24.04%

15.74%

+8.30%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.80%

20.08%

+4.72%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.33%

20.20%

+5.13%

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

INRG.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

INRG.L vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison

INRG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.09%, 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%
INRG.L
iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)		1.09%1.77%1.58%1.00%0.62%1.01%0.61%2.05%3.68%3.69%3.65%3.90%

Frequently Asked Questions

INRG.L and CNDX.L have a correlation of 0.50, 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 0.65% for INRG.L.

INRG.L is categorized as Energy Equities, while CNDX.L is Nasdaq-100. INRG.L tracks S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD, while CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for INRG.L and 0.33% for CNDX.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for INRG.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