IUMS.L vs. CNDX.L
IUMS.L (iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IUMS.L is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Capped 35/20 Materials Index NTR, while CNDX.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IUMS.L returned 4.91%/yr vs 17.61%/yr for CNDX.L. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IUMS.L charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CNDX.L.
Performance
IUMS.L vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IUMS.L achieves a 12.52% return, which is significantly lower than CNDX.L's 19.65% return.
IUMS.L
- 1D
- -0.13%
- 1M
- 0.75%
- YTD
- 12.52%
- 6M
- 16.74%
- 1Y
- 18.25%
- 3Y*
- 11.05%
- 5Y*
- 4.91%
- 10Y*
- —
CNDX.L
- 1D
- -0.66%
- 1M
- 8.52%
- YTD
- 19.65%
- 6M
- 19.10%
- 1Y
- 40.28%
- 3Y*
- 27.98%
- 5Y*
- 17.61%
- 10Y*
- 21.62%
IUMS.L vs. CNDX.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IUMS.L iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 12.52% | 10.90% | -0.92% | 12.41% | -11.90% | 26.93% | 20.54% | 22.92% | -15.68% | 19.22% |
CNDX.L iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF | 19.65% | 19.75% | 26.45% | 56.31% | -33.45% | 27.96% | 48.33% | 38.07% | -1.03% | 21.53% |
Correlation
The correlation between IUMS.L and CNDX.L is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.37 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.44 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.55 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2017 | 0.56 |
The correlation between IUMS.L and CNDX.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.37 (1 year) to 0.56 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
IUMS.L vs. CNDX.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
IUMS.L
CNDX.L
Basic Materials
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Communication Services
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
Financial Services
-
Healthcare
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
-
Utilities
-
Basic Materials
IUMS.L
CNDX.L
Consumer Cyclical
IUMS.L
CNDX.L
Industrials
IUMS.L
CNDX.L
Communication Services
IUMS.L
-
CNDX.L
Consumer Defensive
IUMS.L
-
CNDX.L
Energy
IUMS.L
-
CNDX.L
Financial Services
IUMS.L
-
CNDX.L
Healthcare
IUMS.L
-
CNDX.L
Real Estate
IUMS.L
-
CNDX.L
Technology
IUMS.L
-
CNDX.L
Utilities
IUMS.L
-
CNDX.L
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
IUMS.L vs. CNDX.L — Risk / Return Rank
IUMS.L
CNDX.L
IUMS.L vs. CNDX.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IUMS.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.
| IUMS.L | CNDX.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.41 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.88 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.19 | 1.43 | -0.24 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.58 | 3.61 | -2.03 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.71 | 13.03 | -8.32 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| IUMS.L | CNDX.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.10 | 2.52 | -1.41 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.26 | 0.84 | -0.58 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 1.07 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.48 | 1.12 | -0.64 |
Drawdowns
IUMS.L vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IUMS.L drawdown since its inception was -35.81%, roughly equal to the maximum CNDX.L drawdown of -35.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IUMS.L and CNDX.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IUMS.L | CNDX.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -35.81% | -35.17% | -0.64% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.51% | -11.00% | -0.51% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -22.80% | -22.44% | -0.36% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.24% | -35.17% | +9.93% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -35.17% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.42% | -0.76% | -2.66% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.06% | -5.30% | -1.76% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.87% | 3.07% | +0.80% |
Volatility
IUMS.L vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IUMS.L) has a higher volatility of 6.12% compared to iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) at 4.90%. This indicates that IUMS.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
| IUMS.L | CNDX.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.12% | 4.90% | +1.22% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.40% | 11.88% | +1.52% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.52% | 15.79% | +0.73% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.90% | 20.87% | -1.97% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.07% | 20.07% | 0.00% |
IUMS.L vs. CNDX.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
IUMS.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.
Dividends
IUMS.L vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither IUMS.L nor CNDX.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
IUMS.L iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IUMS.L and CNDX.L have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IUMS.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IUMS.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CNDX.L.
IUMS.L is categorized as S&P 500, while CNDX.L is Nasdaq-100. IUMS.L tracks S&P 500 Capped 35/20 Materials Index NTR, while CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for IUMS.L and 0.33% for CNDX.L.
Find the right allocation for IUMS.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