PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

IWQU.L vs. CNDX.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IWQU.L (iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS) and CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWQU.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD, while CNDX.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IWQU.L returned 12.42%/yr vs 21.62%/yr for CNDX.L. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWQU.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CNDX.L.

Performance

IWQU.L vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS (IWQU.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWQU.L achieves a 8.47% return, which is significantly lower than CNDX.L's 19.65% return. Over the past 10 years, IWQU.L has underperformed CNDX.L with an annualized return of 12.42%, while CNDX.L has yielded a comparatively higher 21.62% annualized return.

IWQU.L

1D
0.85%
1M
1.95%
YTD
8.47%
6M
9.52%
1Y
20.74%
3Y*
18.41%
5Y*
10.34%
10Y*
12.42%

CNDX.L

1D
-0.66%
1M
6.81%
YTD
19.65%
6M
18.66%
1Y
39.29%
3Y*
27.98%
5Y*
17.61%
10Y*
21.62%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IWQU.L
iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS		8.47%15.28%17.38%25.66%-19.26%23.70%14.95%29.64%-7.53%23.57%
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%32.36%

Correlation

The correlation between IWQU.L and CNDX.L is 0.80, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

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

0.80

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

0.75

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

0.82

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

0.82

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 21, 2014

0.76

The correlation between IWQU.L and CNDX.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors
IWQU.L
CNDX.L

Technology

31.6%
57.3%

Financial Services

13.9%
0.2%

Industrials

10.6%
2.8%

Healthcare

9.4%
3.8%

Consumer Cyclical

8.9%
11.6%

Communication Services

8.6%
14.5%

Consumer Defensive

5.1%
6.9%

Energy

4.2%
0.5%

Basic Materials

3.2%
1.1%

Utilities

2.5%
1.3%

Real Estate

1.7%
0.1%

Technology

IWQU.L
31.6%
CNDX.L
57.3%

Financial Services

IWQU.L
13.9%
CNDX.L
0.2%

Industrials

IWQU.L
10.6%
CNDX.L
2.8%

Healthcare

IWQU.L
9.4%
CNDX.L
3.8%

Consumer Cyclical

IWQU.L
8.9%
CNDX.L
11.6%

Communication Services

IWQU.L
8.6%
CNDX.L
14.5%

Consumer Defensive

IWQU.L
5.1%
CNDX.L
6.9%

Energy

IWQU.L
4.2%
CNDX.L
0.5%

Basic Materials

IWQU.L
3.2%
CNDX.L
1.1%

Utilities

IWQU.L
2.5%
CNDX.L
1.3%

Real Estate

IWQU.L
1.7%
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 MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS

iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF

Often compared with IWQU.L:
IWQU.L vs. XDEQ.LIWQU.L vs. IWDA.ASIWQU.L vs. VOOIWQU.L vs. IWVL.LIWQU.L vs. IWMO.MIIWQU.L vs. VTIWQU.L vs. IWVG.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

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IWQU.L
IWQU.L Risk / Return Rank: 5656
Overall Rank
IWQU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5454
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWQU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6161
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWQU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
IWQU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5050
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWQU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5858
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS (IWQU.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.

IWQU.LCNDX.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.83
2.52

-0.69

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.83
3.50

-0.68

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.43

-0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.45

3.61

-1.16

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.14

13.03

-2.89

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

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

The current IWQU.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.83, which is comparable to the CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWQU.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

IWQU.LCNDX.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.83

2.52

-0.69

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.67

0.84

-0.17

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.80

1.07

-0.28

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.79

1.12

-0.33

Drawdowns

IWQU.L vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWQU.L drawdown since its inception was -33.05%, smaller than the maximum CNDX.L drawdown of -35.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWQU.L and CNDX.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IWQU.LCNDX.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.05%

-35.17%

+2.12%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.53%

-11.00%

+2.47%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.09%

-22.44%

+6.35%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-27.70%

-35.17%

+7.47%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-33.05%

-35.17%

+2.12%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.76%

+0.76%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.69%

-5.30%

+0.61%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.07%

3.07%

-1.00%

Volatility

IWQU.L vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS (IWQU.L) is 3.18%, while iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) has a volatility of 4.90%. This indicates that IWQU.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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IWQU.LCNDX.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.18%

4.90%

-1.72%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.91%

11.88%

-2.97%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.45%

15.79%

-4.34%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.42%

20.87%

-5.45%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.81%

20.07%

-4.26%

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

IWQU.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

IWQU.L vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither IWQU.L nor CNDX.L has 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%
IWQU.L
iShares MSCI World Quality Factor UCITS		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

IWQU.L and CNDX.L have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, IWQU.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

IWQU.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CNDX.L.

IWQU.L is categorized as Global Equities, while CNDX.L is Nasdaq-100. IWQU.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD, while CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for IWQU.L and 0.33% for CNDX.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IWQU.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