N4US.L vs. EQGB.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

N4US.L (Invesco JPX-Nikkei 400 UCITS ETF (USD Hdg)) and EQGB.L (Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - N4US.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the Invesco JPX-Nikkei 400 UCITS ETF (USD Hdg), while EQGB.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, N4US.L returned 22.54%/yr vs 13.69%/yr for EQGB.L. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. N4US.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for EQGB.L.

Performance

N4US.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 (USD Hdg) (N4US.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

N4US.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

In the year-to-date period, N4US.L achieves a 22.05% return, which is significantly higher than EQGB.L's 15.85% return.

N4US.L

• 1D: -0.97%
• 1M: 1.76%
• 6M: 14.49%
• YTD: 22.05%
• 1Y: 50.55%
• 3Y*: 29.24%
• 5Y*: 22.54%
• 10Y*: 16.63%

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)

N4US.L vs. EQGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
N4US.L Invesco JPX-Nikkei 400 UCITS ETF (USD Hdg)	22.05%	30.25%	23.77%	35.97%	-1.05%	11.18%	10.79%	19.49%	-15.75%	7.21%
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 N4US.L and EQGB.L is 0.54, 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	0.54
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.51
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 17, 2017	0.53

The correlation between N4US.L and EQGB.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

N4US.L vs. EQGB.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

N4US.L

N4US.L Risk / Return Rank: 92
N4US.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
N4US.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
N4US.L Omega Ratio Rank: 90
N4US.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
N4US.L Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

N4US.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 (USD Hdg) (N4US.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.

	N4US.L	EQGB.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.58	1.46	+1.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.50	2.13	+1.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.25	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.38	1.92	+3.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.45	6.69	+11.76

N4US.L vs. EQGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current N4US.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.58, which is higher than the EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of N4US.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

N4US.L vs. EQGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum N4US.L drawdown since its inception was -30.94%, smaller than the maximum EQGB.L drawdown of -47.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for N4US.L and EQGB.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	N4US.L	EQGB.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.94%	-47.56%	+16.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.35%	-14.96%	+5.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.38%	-22.21%	+0.83%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.38%	-47.56%	+26.18%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-30.94%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.87%	-3.38%	+1.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.78%	-9.44%	+2.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.73%	4.30%	-1.57%

Volatility

N4US.L vs. EQGB.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco JPX-Nikkei 400 UCITS ETF (USD Hdg) (N4US.L) is 6.06%, while Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) has a volatility of 6.39%. This indicates that N4US.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EQGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	N4US.L	EQGB.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.06%	6.39%	-0.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.47%	15.70%	-0.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.47%	19.67%	-0.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.48%	24.96%	-6.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.37%	24.73%	-6.36%

N4US.L vs. EQGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

N4US.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than EQGB.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

N4US.L vs. EQGB.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither N4US.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%
N4US.L Invesco JPX-Nikkei 400 UCITS ETF (USD Hdg)	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both N4US.L and EQGB.L in my portfolio?

N4US.L and EQGB.L have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, N4US.L or EQGB.L?

On fees, N4US.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, N4US.L or EQGB.L?

N4US.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for EQGB.L.

What is the main difference between N4US.L and EQGB.L?

N4US.L is categorized as Global Equities, while EQGB.L is Nasdaq-100. N4US.L tracks Invesco JPX-Nikkei 400 UCITS ETF (USD Hdg), while EQGB.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for N4US.L and 0.35% for EQGB.L.