N400.L vs. EQGB.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

N400.L (Invesco JPX-Nikkei 400 UCITS ETF) and EQGB.L (Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - N400.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the Invesco JPX-Nikkei 400 UCITS ETF, while EQGB.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, N400.L returned 9.33%/yr vs 13.69%/yr for EQGB.L. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. N400.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for EQGB.L.

Performance

N400.L vs. EQGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco JPX-Nikkei 400 UCITS ETF (N400.L) and Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

N400.L is traded in USD, while EQGB.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the EQGB.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with N400.L having a 15.10% return and EQGB.L slightly higher at 15.85%.

N400.L

• 1D: -0.86%
• 1M: -0.53%
• 6M: 8.97%
• YTD: 15.10%
• 1Y: 32.85%
• 3Y*: 17.42%
• 5Y*: 9.33%
• 10Y*: 9.05%

EQGB.L

• 1D: 0.42%
• 1M: -2.55%
• 6M: 16.22%
• YTD: 15.85%
• 1Y: 28.84%
• 3Y*: 24.58%
• 5Y*: 13.69%
• 10Y*: —

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

N400.L vs. EQGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
N400.L Invesco JPX-Nikkei 400 UCITS ETF	15.10%	25.87%	6.53%	20.26%	-15.79%	-0.37%	15.93%	17.97%	-14.20%	5.11%
EQGB.L Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc	15.85%	28.61%	24.02%	62.04%	-42.01%	26.53%	49.89%	47.53%	-7.95%	7.72%

Correlation

The correlation between N400.L and EQGB.L is 0.57, 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	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.56
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 17, 2017	0.60

The correlation between N400.L and EQGB.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

N400.L vs. EQGB.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

N400.L

N400.L Risk / Return Rank: 62
N400.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
N400.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
N400.L Omega Ratio Rank: 60
N400.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
N400.L Martin Ratio Rank: 64

EQGB.L

EQGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 58
EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
EQGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
EQGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 55
EQGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
EQGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

N400.L vs. EQGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco JPX-Nikkei 400 UCITS ETF (N400.L) and Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	N400.L	EQGB.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.58	1.46	+0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.30	2.13	+0.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.25	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.77	1.92	+0.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.09	6.69	+2.40

N400.L vs. EQGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current N400.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.58, which is comparable to the EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of N400.L and EQGB.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.

Drawdowns

N400.L vs. EQGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum N400.L drawdown since its inception was -32.66%, smaller than the maximum EQGB.L drawdown of -47.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for N400.L and EQGB.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	N400.L	EQGB.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.66%	-47.56%	+14.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.77%	-14.96%	+3.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.55%	-22.21%	+7.66%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.66%	-47.56%	+14.90%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.66%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.32%	-3.38%	+0.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.10%	-9.44%	+1.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.60%	4.30%	-0.70%

Volatility

N400.L vs. EQGB.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco JPX-Nikkei 400 UCITS ETF (N400.L) and Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) have volatilities of 6.14% and 6.39%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	N400.L	EQGB.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.14%	6.39%	-0.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.32%	15.70%	+1.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.58%	19.67%	+0.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.95%	24.96%	-7.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.93%	24.73%	-7.80%

N400.L vs. EQGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

N400.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than EQGB.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

N400.L vs. EQGB.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither N400.L nor EQGB.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
EQGB.L Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	4.16%
N400.L Invesco JPX-Nikkei 400 UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both N400.L and EQGB.L in my portfolio?

N400.L and EQGB.L have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, N400.L or EQGB.L?

On fees, N400.L is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, N400.L or EQGB.L?

N400.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for EQGB.L.

What is the main difference between N400.L and EQGB.L?

N400.L is categorized as Global Equities, while EQGB.L is Nasdaq-100. N400.L tracks Invesco JPX-Nikkei 400 UCITS ETF, while EQGB.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for N400.L and 0.35% for EQGB.L.