LOCK.L vs. CNDX.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

LOCK.L (iShares Digital Security UCITS ETF USD Acc) and CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LOCK.L is a Technology Equities fund tracking the MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD, while CNDX.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LOCK.L returned 10.04%/yr vs 17.61%/yr for CNDX.L. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LOCK.L charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CNDX.L.

Performance

LOCK.L vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Digital Security UCITS ETF USD Acc (LOCK.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with LOCK.L having a 19.50% return and CNDX.L slightly higher at 19.65%.

LOCK.L

• 1D: -1.95%
• 1M: 10.02%
• YTD: 19.50%
• 6M: 21.22%
• 1Y: 25.28%
• 3Y*: 21.93%
• 5Y*: 10.04%
• 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%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
LOCK.L iShares Digital Security UCITS ETF USD Acc	19.50%	11.36%	16.83%	33.97%	-29.10%	16.48%	26.98%	28.45%	-12.58%
CNDX.L iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF	19.65%	19.75%	26.45%	56.31%	-33.45%	27.96%	48.33%	38.07%	-14.96%

Correlation

The correlation between LOCK.L and CNDX.L is 0.71, 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	0.71
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 13, 2018	0.81

The correlation between LOCK.L and CNDX.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.71 (1 year) to 0.81 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors	LOCK.L	CNDX.L
Technology	82.1%	57.3%
Industrials	12.8%	2.8%
Real Estate	5.2%	0.1%
Basic Materials	-	1.1%
Communication Services	-	14.5%
Consumer Cyclical	-	11.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	6.9%
Energy	-	0.5%
Financial Services	-	0.2%
Healthcare	-	3.8%
Utilities	-	1.3%

Return for Risk

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

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

LOCK.L

LOCK.L Risk / Return Rank: 37
LOCK.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
LOCK.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
LOCK.L Omega Ratio Rank: 34
LOCK.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
LOCK.L Martin Ratio Rank: 34

CNDX.L

CNDX.L Risk / Return Rank: 75
CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
CNDX.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
CNDX.L Omega Ratio Rank: 74
CNDX.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
CNDX.L Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Digital Security UCITS ETF USD Acc (LOCK.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.

	LOCK.L	CNDX.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.23	2.52	-1.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.81	3.50	-1.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.43	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.16	3.61	-1.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.16	13.03	-7.87
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current LOCK.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.23, which is lower than the CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LOCK.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	LOCK.L	CNDX.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.23	2.52	-1.29
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.48	0.84	-0.36
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	1.07	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.58	1.12	-0.54

Drawdowns

LOCK.L vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LOCK.L drawdown since its inception was -36.04%, roughly equal to the maximum CNDX.L drawdown of -35.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LOCK.L and CNDX.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	LOCK.L	CNDX.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.04%	-35.17%	-0.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.65%	-11.00%	-0.65%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.32%	-22.44%	+0.12%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-36.04%	-35.17%	-0.87%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.17%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.87%	-0.76%	-2.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.60%	-5.30%	-4.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.88%	3.07%	+1.81%

Volatility

LOCK.L vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares Digital Security UCITS ETF USD Acc (LOCK.L) has a higher volatility of 8.23% compared to iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) at 4.90%. This indicates that LOCK.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.

Volatility by Period

	LOCK.L	CNDX.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.23%	4.90%	+3.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.43%	11.88%	+4.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.55%	15.79%	+4.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.07%	20.87%	+0.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.13%	20.07%	+1.06%

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

LOCK.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

LOCK.L vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither LOCK.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%
LOCK.L iShares Digital Security 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

Can I hold both LOCK.L and CNDX.L in my portfolio?

LOCK.L and CNDX.L have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, LOCK.L or CNDX.L?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, LOCK.L or CNDX.L?

CNDX.L is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for LOCK.L.

What is the main difference between LOCK.L and CNDX.L?

LOCK.L is categorized as Technology Equities, while CNDX.L is Nasdaq-100. LOCK.L tracks MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD, while CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for LOCK.L and 0.33% for CNDX.L.