PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
QQQO.L vs. CNDX.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

QQQO.L vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in IncomeShares Nasdaq 100 Options (0DTE) ETP GBP (QQQO.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QQQO.L achieves a 13.58% return, which is significantly lower than CNDX.L's 18.71% return.


QQQO.L

1D
0.00%
1M
-0.31%
YTD
13.58%
6M
13.39%
1Y
32.91%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

CNDX.L

1D
0.00%
1M
0.55%
YTD
18.71%
6M
18.24%
1Y
37.91%
3Y*
24.57%
5Y*
17.08%
10Y*
22.12%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)20252024
QQQO.L
IncomeShares Nasdaq 100 Options (0DTE) ETP GBP
13.58%10.65%8,328.72%
CNDX.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF
17.99%11.22%15.27%

Correlation

The correlation between QQQO.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 (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 2, 2024

0.63

The correlation between QQQO.L and CNDX.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

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

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

QQQO.L
QQQO.L Risk / Return Rank: 3535
Overall Rank
QQQO.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2323
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QQQO.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
QQQO.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7979
Omega Ratio Rank
QQQO.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2727
Calmar Ratio Rank
QQQO.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1818
Martin Ratio Rank

CNDX.L
CNDX.L Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for IncomeShares Nasdaq 100 Options (0DTE) ETP GBP (QQQO.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.

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.


QQQO.LCNDX.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.51

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.60

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.41

1.40

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.21

3.40

-2.19

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.79

9.47

-7.68

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

The current QQQO.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.76, which is lower than the CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQQO.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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

QQQO.L vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQQO.L drawdown since its inception was -27.28%, roughly equal to the maximum CNDX.L drawdown of -27.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQQO.L and CNDX.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QQQO.LCNDX.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-27.28%

-27.78%

+0.50%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-27.28%

-11.11%

-16.17%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.37%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-27.78%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-27.78%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-14.23%

-2.47%

-11.76%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.34%

-4.54%

-6.80%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

18.41%

3.99%

+14.42%

Volatility

QQQO.L vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for IncomeShares Nasdaq 100 Options (0DTE) ETP GBP (QQQO.L) is 5.48%, while iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) has a volatility of 6.26%. This indicates that QQQO.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNDX.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QQQO.LCNDX.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.48%

6.26%

-0.78%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.05%

12.78%

-2.73%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

43.50%

16.62%

+26.88%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

5,557.03%

20.26%

+5,536.77%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

5,557.03%

20.16%

+5,536.87%

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

QQQO.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.


Dividends

QQQO.L vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison

QQQO.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 73.94%, while CNDX.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024
CNDX.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF
0.00%0.00%0.00%
QQQO.L
IncomeShares Nasdaq 100 Options (0DTE) ETP GBP
73.94%128.94%17.93%

Frequently Asked Questions


QQQO.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.

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.

CNDX.L is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for QQQO.L.

They also come from different issuers: Leverage Shares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for QQQO.L and 0.33% for CNDX.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for QQQO.L and CNDX.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