PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
R2SC.L vs. CNX1.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

R2SC.L vs. CNX1.L

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

R2SC.L (SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF) and CNX1.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - R2SC.L is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 TR USD, while CNX1.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, R2SC.L returned 11.57%/yr vs 22.20%/yr for CNX1.L. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. R2SC.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.36%/yr for CNX1.L.

Performance

R2SC.L vs. CNX1.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2SC.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CNX1.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

R2SC.L is traded in GBP, while CNX1.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the CNX1.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, R2SC.L achieves a 19.34% return, which is significantly higher than CNX1.L's 17.14% return. Over the past 10 years, R2SC.L has underperformed CNX1.L with an annualized return of 11.57%, while CNX1.L has yielded a comparatively higher 22.20% annualized return.

R2SC.L

1D
2.39%
1M
3.94%
YTD
19.34%
6M
15.53%
1Y
42.90%
3Y*
14.70%
5Y*
7.10%
10Y*
11.57%

CNX1.L

1D
2.47%
1M
0.58%
YTD
17.14%
6M
17.43%
1Y
38.31%
3Y*
23.65%
5Y*
17.86%
10Y*
22.20%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

R2SC.L vs. CNX1.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
R2SC.L
SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF		19.34%4.66%11.88%12.16%-11.55%15.87%15.73%20.67%-7.45%4.45%
CNX1.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)		17.14%11.57%28.51%47.71%-25.53%29.50%43.24%33.63%4.62%20.13%

Correlation

The correlation between R2SC.L and CNX1.L is 0.63, 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

0.63

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.58

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.63

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.65

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2014

0.68

The correlation between R2SC.L and CNX1.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.58 (3 years) to 0.68 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

R2SC.L vs. CNX1.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
R2SC.L
CNX1.L

Technology

19.2%
60.0%

Industrials

17.9%
2.8%

Healthcare

16.3%
3.6%

Financial Services

15.5%
0.2%

Consumer Cyclical

7.9%
10.8%

Real Estate

5.9%
0.1%

Energy

5.3%
0.5%

Basic Materials

4.7%
1.0%

Utilities

2.7%
1.1%

Communication Services

2.5%
13.5%

Consumer Defensive

2.2%
6.4%

Technology

R2SC.L
19.2%
CNX1.L
60.0%

Industrials

R2SC.L
17.9%
CNX1.L
2.8%

Healthcare

R2SC.L
16.3%
CNX1.L
3.6%

Financial Services

R2SC.L
15.5%
CNX1.L
0.2%

Consumer Cyclical

R2SC.L
7.9%
CNX1.L
10.8%

Real Estate

R2SC.L
5.9%
CNX1.L
0.1%

Energy

R2SC.L
5.3%
CNX1.L
0.5%

Basic Materials

R2SC.L
4.7%
CNX1.L
1.0%

Utilities

R2SC.L
2.7%
CNX1.L
1.1%

Communication Services

R2SC.L
2.5%
CNX1.L
13.5%

Consumer Defensive

R2SC.L
2.2%
CNX1.L
6.4%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF

iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)

Often compared with R2SC.L:
R2SC.L vs. USSC.LR2SC.L vs. XRSG.LR2SC.L vs. ^SP400R2SC.L vs. AVUVR2SC.L vs. WSML.LR2SC.L vs. RTYS.LR2SC.L vs. CUS1.L
Often compared with CNX1.L:
CNX1.L vs. CNDX.LCNX1.L vs. EQQQ.LCNX1.L vs. IITU.LCNX1.L vs. EQGB.LCNX1.L vs. QQQCNX1.L vs. XNAQ.LCNX1.L vs. SXRV.DE

Return for Risk

R2SC.L vs. CNX1.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
R2SC.L
R2SC.L Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
R2SC.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
R2SC.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
R2SC.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7777
Omega Ratio Rank
R2SC.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
R2SC.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8282
Martin Ratio Rank
CNX1.L
CNX1.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
CNX1.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNX1.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNX1.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8383
Omega Ratio Rank
CNX1.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNX1.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
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.

R2SC.L vs. CNX1.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2SC.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CNX1.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.

R2SC.LCNX1.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.40
2.45

-0.05

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.26
3.24

+0.02

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.40

1.43

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.80

3.39

+1.40

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.21

9.86

+4.35

R2SC.L vs. CNX1.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current R2SC.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.40, which is comparable to the CNX1.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of R2SC.L and CNX1.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

R2SC.L vs. CNX1.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum R2SC.L drawdown since its inception was -44.96%, which is greater than CNX1.L's maximum drawdown of -27.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for R2SC.L and CNX1.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

R2SC.LCNX1.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-44.96%

-27.56%

-17.40%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.63%

-11.03%

+2.40%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-30.00%

-24.56%

-5.44%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-30.00%

-27.56%

-2.44%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.03%

-27.56%

-7.47%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-2.87%

+2.87%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-13.87%

-4.91%

-8.96%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.92%

3.80%

-0.88%

Volatility

R2SC.L vs. CNX1.L - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (R2SC.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CNX1.L) have volatilities of 5.57% and 5.76%, 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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

R2SC.LCNX1.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.57%

5.76%

-0.19%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.17%

11.22%

+0.95%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.39%

15.31%

+2.08%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

26.09%

30.31%

-4.22%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.88%

25.51%

-1.63%

R2SC.L vs. CNX1.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

R2SC.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than CNX1.L's 0.36% expense ratio.

Dividends

R2SC.L vs. CNX1.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither R2SC.L nor CNX1.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

R2SC.L and CNX1.L have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, R2SC.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

R2SC.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.36% for CNX1.L.

R2SC.L is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while CNX1.L is Nasdaq-100. R2SC.L tracks Russell 2000 TR USD, while CNX1.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for R2SC.L and 0.36% for CNX1.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for R2SC.L and CNX1.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