PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
MVUS.L vs. CNX1.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

MVUS.L vs. CNX1.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MVUS.L (iShares Edge S&P 500 Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and CNX1.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - MVUS.L is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Index, while CNX1.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, MVUS.L returned 11.39%/yr vs 22.43%/yr for CNX1.L. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MVUS.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.36%/yr for CNX1.L.

Performance

MVUS.L vs. CNX1.L - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MVUS.L achieves a 4.45% return, which is significantly lower than CNX1.L's 19.85% return. Over the past 10 years, MVUS.L has underperformed CNX1.L with an annualized return of 11.39%, while CNX1.L has yielded a comparatively higher 22.43% annualized return.

MVUS.L

1D
0.22%
1M
4.90%
YTD
4.45%
6M
4.88%
1Y
12.53%
3Y*
10.84%
5Y*
10.08%
10Y*
11.39%

CNX1.L

1D
-0.63%
1M
9.63%
YTD
19.85%
6M
18.42%
1Y
41.69%
3Y*
24.68%
5Y*
18.83%
10Y*
22.43%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
MVUS.L
iShares Edge S&P 500 Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF USD (Acc)		4.45%3.88%20.71%3.83%-0.36%26.59%3.87%26.86%-0.36%6.22%
CNX1.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)		19.85%11.57%28.51%47.71%-25.53%29.50%43.24%33.63%4.62%20.13%

Correlation

The correlation between MVUS.L and CNX1.L is 0.52, 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

0.52

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

0.60

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

0.65

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

0.73

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 7, 2013

0.75

Over the past year, the correlation between MVUS.L and CNX1.L has dropped to 0.52 - well below their long-term average of 0.75, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

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

Sectors
MVUS.L
CNX1.L

Technology

31.0%
57.3%

Financial Services

17.2%
0.2%

Healthcare

13.0%
3.8%

Consumer Defensive

10.4%
6.9%

Consumer Cyclical

6.7%
11.6%

Communication Services

6.2%
14.5%

Industrials

5.6%
2.8%

Energy

5.0%
0.5%

Utilities

2.7%
1.3%

Basic Materials

2.2%
1.1%

Real Estate

0.2%
0.1%

Technology

MVUS.L
31.0%
CNX1.L
57.3%

Financial Services

MVUS.L
17.2%
CNX1.L
0.2%

Healthcare

MVUS.L
13.0%
CNX1.L
3.8%

Consumer Defensive

MVUS.L
10.4%
CNX1.L
6.9%

Consumer Cyclical

MVUS.L
6.7%
CNX1.L
11.6%

Communication Services

MVUS.L
6.2%
CNX1.L
14.5%

Industrials

MVUS.L
5.6%
CNX1.L
2.8%

Energy

MVUS.L
5.0%
CNX1.L
0.5%

Utilities

MVUS.L
2.7%
CNX1.L
1.3%

Basic Materials

MVUS.L
2.2%
CNX1.L
1.1%

Real Estate

MVUS.L
0.2%
CNX1.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 Edge S&P 500 Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF USD (Acc)

iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)

Often compared with MVUS.L:
MVUS.L vs. USMVMVUS.L vs. XDEB.LMVUS.L vs. MVEA.LMVUS.L vs. GLTS.LMVUS.L vs. HMUD.LMVUS.L vs. XLPP.LMVUS.L vs. JURE.L
Often compared with CNX1.L:
CNX1.L vs. CNDX.LCNX1.L vs. EQQQ.LCNX1.L vs. IITU.LCNX1.L vs. EQGB.LCNX1.L vs. QQQCNX1.L vs. XNAQ.LCNX1.L vs. SXRV.DE

Return for Risk

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
MVUS.L
MVUS.L Risk / Return Rank: 4545
Overall Rank
MVUS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4545
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MVUS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4545
Sortino Ratio Rank
MVUS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
MVUS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4747
Calmar Ratio Rank
MVUS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4545
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.

MVUS.L vs. CNX1.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Edge S&P 500 Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (MVUS.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.

MVUS.LCNX1.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.55
2.82

-1.27

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.19
3.72

-1.53

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.50

-0.22

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.32

3.76

-1.45

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.24

11.10

-3.86

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

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

The current MVUS.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.55, which is lower than the CNX1.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MVUS.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

MVUS.LCNX1.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.55

2.82

-1.27

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.86

0.98

-0.12

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.83

1.16

-0.33

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.95

1.14

-0.19

Drawdowns

MVUS.L vs. CNX1.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MVUS.L drawdown since its inception was -24.85%, smaller than the maximum CNX1.L drawdown of -27.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MVUS.L and CNX1.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

MVUS.LCNX1.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-24.85%

-27.56%

+2.71%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.39%

-11.03%

+5.64%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.19%

-24.56%

+10.37%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-14.19%

-27.56%

+13.37%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-24.85%

-27.56%

+2.71%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.63%

+0.63%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.44%

-4.57%

+1.13%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.73%

3.75%

-2.02%

Volatility

MVUS.L vs. CNX1.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Edge S&P 500 Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (MVUS.L) is 2.24%, while iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CNX1.L) has a volatility of 4.13%. This indicates that MVUS.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNX1.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

MVUS.LCNX1.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.24%

4.13%

-1.89%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.65%

10.38%

-4.73%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.05%

14.70%

-6.65%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.72%

19.16%

-7.44%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.78%

19.44%

-5.66%

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

MVUS.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than CNX1.L's 0.36% expense ratio.

Dividends

MVUS.L vs. CNX1.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

MVUS.L and CNX1.L have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, MVUS.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

MVUS.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.36% for CNX1.L.

MVUS.L is categorized as S&P 500, while CNX1.L is Nasdaq-100. MVUS.L tracks S&P 500 Index, while CNX1.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for MVUS.L and 0.36% for CNX1.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for MVUS.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