PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IUMS.L vs. CNX1.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IUMS.L vs. CNX1.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IUMS.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CNX1.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

IUMS.L is traded in USD, while CNX1.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the CNX1.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IUMS.L achieves a 12.52% return, which is significantly lower than CNX1.L's 19.55% 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*

CNX1.L

1D
-0.58%
1M
8.70%
YTD
19.55%
6M
19.30%
1Y
40.34%
3Y*
27.90%
5Y*
17.58%
10Y*
21.54%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IUMS.L vs. CNX1.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
CNX1.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
19.55%19.98%26.37%55.50%-33.49%28.32%47.63%38.99%-1.30%21.00%

Correlation

The correlation between IUMS.L and CNX1.L is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.33

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

0.41

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

0.52

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2017

0.53

The correlation between IUMS.L and CNX1.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.33 (1 year) to 0.53 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IUMS.L vs. CNX1.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IUMS.L
CNX1.L

Basic Materials

91.5%
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

8.5%
11.6%

Industrials

1.1%
2.8%

Communication Services

-

14.5%

Consumer Defensive

-

6.9%

Energy

-

0.5%

Financial Services

-

0.2%

Healthcare

-

3.8%

Real Estate

-

0.1%

Technology

-

57.3%

Utilities

-

1.3%

Basic Materials

IUMS.L
91.5%
CNX1.L
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

IUMS.L
8.5%
CNX1.L
11.6%

Industrials

IUMS.L
1.1%
CNX1.L
2.8%

Communication Services

IUMS.L

-

CNX1.L
14.5%

Consumer Defensive

IUMS.L

-

CNX1.L
6.9%

Energy

IUMS.L

-

CNX1.L
0.5%

Financial Services

IUMS.L

-

CNX1.L
0.2%

Healthcare

IUMS.L

-

CNX1.L
3.8%

Real Estate

IUMS.L

-

CNX1.L
0.1%

Technology

IUMS.L

-

CNX1.L
57.3%

Utilities

IUMS.L

-

CNX1.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.


Return for Risk

IUMS.L vs. CNX1.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

IUMS.L
IUMS.L Risk / Return Rank: 3131
Overall Rank
IUMS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3131
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IUMS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3131
Sortino Ratio Rank
IUMS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2929
Omega Ratio Rank
IUMS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3232
Calmar Ratio Rank
IUMS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3232
Martin Ratio Rank

CNX1.L
CNX1.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
CNX1.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8686
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNX1.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNX1.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8383
Omega Ratio Rank
CNX1.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNX1.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
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.

IUMS.L vs. CNX1.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 USD (Acc) (CNX1.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.LCNX1.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.51

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.96

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.19

1.44

-0.25

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.58

3.65

-2.07

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.71

13.38

-8.67

IUMS.L vs. CNX1.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IUMS.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.10, which is lower than the CNX1.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IUMS.L and CNX1.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


IUMS.LCNX1.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.10

2.61

-1.51

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.26

0.86

-0.60

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

1.09

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.48

1.07

-0.59

Drawdowns

IUMS.L vs. CNX1.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IUMS.L drawdown since its inception was -35.81%, roughly equal to the maximum CNX1.L drawdown of -35.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IUMS.L and CNX1.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IUMS.LCNX1.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.81%

-35.21%

-0.60%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.51%

-10.99%

-0.52%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.80%

-23.11%

+0.31%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.24%

-35.21%

+9.97%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.21%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.42%

-0.77%

-2.65%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.06%

-5.19%

-1.87%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.87%

3.01%

+0.86%

Volatility

IUMS.L vs. CNX1.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 USD (Acc) (CNX1.L) at 4.33%. This indicates that IUMS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CNX1.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IUMS.LCNX1.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.12%

4.33%

+1.79%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.40%

11.28%

+2.12%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.52%

15.39%

+1.13%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.90%

20.48%

-1.58%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.07%

19.91%

+0.16%

IUMS.L vs. CNX1.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

IUMS.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than CNX1.L's 0.36% expense ratio.


Dividends

IUMS.L vs. CNX1.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither IUMS.L nor CNX1.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


IUMS.L and CNX1.L have a correlation of 0.33, 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 0.36% for CNX1.L.

IUMS.L is categorized as S&P 500, while CNX1.L is Nasdaq-100. IUMS.L tracks S&P 500 Capped 35/20 Materials Index NTR, while CNX1.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for IUMS.L and 0.36% for CNX1.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IUMS.L and CNX1.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