QQQ5.L vs. CNDX.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

QQQ5.L (Leverage Shares 5x Long Nasdaq 100 ETP Securities) and CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds - QQQ5.L tracks the Invesco QQQ Trust while CNDX.L tracks the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, QQQ5.L returned 74.62%/yr vs 27.98%/yr for CNDX.L. With a 0.98 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. QQQ5.L charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CNDX.L.

Performance

QQQ5.L vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Leverage Shares 5x Long Nasdaq 100 ETP Securities (QQQ5.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QQQ5.L achieves a 91.93% return, which is significantly higher than CNDX.L's 19.65% return.

QQQ5.L

• 1D: -3.75%
• 1M: 44.54%
• YTD: 91.93%
• 6M: 81.30%
• 1Y: 210.48%
• 3Y*: 74.62%
• 5Y*: —
• 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)

QQQ5.L vs. CNDX.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
QQQ5.L Leverage Shares 5x Long Nasdaq 100 ETP Securities	91.93%	2.29%	74.04%	430.61%	-96.07%	17.02%
CNDX.L iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF	19.65%	19.75%	26.45%	56.31%	-33.45%	3.75%

Correlation

The correlation between QQQ5.L and CNDX.L is 0.99 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.99
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.99
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2021	0.98

The correlation between QQQ5.L and CNDX.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.98 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

QQQ5.L vs. CNDX.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QQQ5.L	CNDX.L
Technology	54.2%	57.3%
Communication Services	15.5%	14.5%
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	11.6%
Consumer Defensive	7.6%	6.9%
Healthcare	4.2%	3.8%
Industrials	2.8%	2.8%
Utilities	1.4%	1.3%
Basic Materials	1.2%	1.1%
Energy	0.6%	0.5%
Financial Services	0.2%	0.2%
Real Estate	0.1%	0.1%

Return for Risk

QQQ5.L vs. CNDX.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQQ5.L

QQQ5.L Risk / Return Rank: 67
QQQ5.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
QQQ5.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
QQQ5.L Omega Ratio Rank: 58
QQQ5.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
QQQ5.L Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

QQQ5.L vs. CNDX.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leverage Shares 5x Long Nasdaq 100 ETP Securities (QQQ5.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.

	QQQ5.L	CNDX.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.62	2.52	+0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.86	3.50	-0.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.43	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.68	3.61	+0.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.11	13.03	-2.92
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QQQ5.L vs. CNDX.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQQ5.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.62, which is comparable to the CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQQ5.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

	QQQ5.L	CNDX.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.62	2.52	+0.11
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.84	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	1.07	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.04	1.12	-1.16

Drawdowns

QQQ5.L vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQQ5.L drawdown since its inception was -96.40%, which is greater than CNDX.L's maximum drawdown of -35.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQQ5.L and CNDX.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQQ5.L	CNDX.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-96.40%	-35.17%	-61.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-56.84%	-11.00%	-45.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-80.09%	-22.44%	-57.65%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.17%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.17%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-31.58%	-0.76%	-30.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-75.53%	-5.30%	-70.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	20.72%	3.07%	+17.65%

Volatility

QQQ5.L vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison

Leverage Shares 5x Long Nasdaq 100 ETP Securities (QQQ5.L) has a higher volatility of 24.82% compared to iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) at 4.90%. This indicates that QQQ5.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

	QQQ5.L	CNDX.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	24.82%	4.90%	+19.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	58.83%	11.88%	+46.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	79.70%	15.79%	+63.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	106.00%	20.87%	+85.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	106.00%	20.07%	+85.93%

QQQ5.L vs. CNDX.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

QQQ5.L has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

QQQ5.L vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither QQQ5.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%
QQQ5.L Leverage Shares 5x Long Nasdaq 100 ETP Securities	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 QQQ5.L and CNDX.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.99, QQQ5.L and CNDX.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, QQQ5.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, QQQ5.L or CNDX.L?

CNDX.L is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for QQQ5.L.

What is the main difference between QQQ5.L and CNDX.L?

QQQ5.L tracks Invesco QQQ Trust, while CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. They also come from different issuers: Leverage Shares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for QQQ5.L and 0.33% for CNDX.L.