R1GR.AS vs. CNDX.AS

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

R1GR.AS (iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF) and CNDX.AS (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - R1GR.AS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth UCITS 30/18 Capped index, while CNDX.AS is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, R1GR.AS returned 25.33% vs 40.15% for CNDX.AS. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. R1GR.AS charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.36%/yr for CNDX.AS.

Performance

R1GR.AS vs. CNDX.AS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (R1GR.AS) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.AS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

R1GR.AS is traded in USD, while CNDX.AS is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the CNDX.AS values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, R1GR.AS achieves a 6.45% return, which is significantly lower than CNDX.AS's 19.58% return.

R1GR.AS

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: 5.23%
• YTD: 6.45%
• 6M: 6.63%
• 1Y: 25.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CNDX.AS

• 1D: -0.65%
• 1M: 8.56%
• YTD: 19.58%
• 6M: 19.12%
• 1Y: 40.15%
• 3Y*: 27.93%
• 5Y*: 17.57%
• 10Y*: 21.52%

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

R1GR.AS vs. CNDX.AS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
R1GR.AS iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF	6.45%	17.57%	35.07%	6.55%
CNDX.AS iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF	19.58%	20.42%	26.92%	6.76%

Correlation

The correlation between R1GR.AS and CNDX.AS is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2023	0.86

The correlation between R1GR.AS and CNDX.AS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

R1GR.AS vs. CNDX.AS — Risk / Return Rank

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

R1GR.AS

R1GR.AS Risk / Return Rank: 42
R1GR.AS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
R1GR.AS Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
R1GR.AS Omega Ratio Rank: 46
R1GR.AS Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
R1GR.AS Martin Ratio Rank: 35

CNDX.AS

CNDX.AS Risk / Return Rank: 71
CNDX.AS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
CNDX.AS Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
CNDX.AS Omega Ratio Rank: 73
CNDX.AS Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
CNDX.AS Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

R1GR.AS vs. CNDX.AS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (R1GR.AS) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.AS). 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.

	R1GR.AS	CNDX.AS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.63	2.56	-0.93
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.36	3.51	-1.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.43	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.59	3.55	-1.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.20	13.44	-8.24
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

R1GR.AS vs. CNDX.AS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current R1GR.AS Sharpe Ratio is 1.63, which is lower than the CNDX.AS Sharpe Ratio of 2.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of R1GR.AS and CNDX.AS, 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

	R1GR.AS	CNDX.AS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.63	2.56	-0.93
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	1.32	0.98	+0.34

Drawdowns

R1GR.AS vs. CNDX.AS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum R1GR.AS drawdown since its inception was -23.09%, smaller than the maximum CNDX.AS drawdown of -35.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for R1GR.AS and CNDX.AS.

Drawdown Indicators

	R1GR.AS	CNDX.AS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.09%	-35.03%	+11.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.71%	-11.15%	-4.56%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-22.88%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.03%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.03%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.53%	-0.78%	-0.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.34%	-5.26%	+1.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.84%	2.96%	+1.88%

Volatility

R1GR.AS vs. CNDX.AS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (R1GR.AS) is 4.13%, while iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.AS) has a volatility of 4.58%. This indicates that R1GR.AS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNDX.AS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	R1GR.AS	CNDX.AS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.13%	4.58%	-0.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.33%	11.22%	+0.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.36%	15.49%	-0.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.90%	20.49%	-1.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.90%	19.87%	-0.97%

R1GR.AS vs. CNDX.AS - Expense Ratio Comparison

R1GR.AS has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than CNDX.AS's 0.36% expense ratio.

Dividends

R1GR.AS vs. CNDX.AS - Dividend Comparison

Neither R1GR.AS nor CNDX.AS has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both R1GR.AS and CNDX.AS in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, R1GR.AS and CNDX.AS 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, R1GR.AS or CNDX.AS?

On fees, R1GR.AS is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, R1GR.AS or CNDX.AS?

R1GR.AS is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.36% for CNDX.AS.

What is the main difference between R1GR.AS and CNDX.AS?

R1GR.AS is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while CNDX.AS is Nasdaq-100. R1GR.AS tracks Russell 1000 Growth UCITS 30/18 Capped index, while CNDX.AS tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for R1GR.AS and 0.36% for CNDX.AS.