PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
SAUM.L vs. CNDX.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

SAUM.L vs. CNDX.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

SAUM.L (iShares MSCI EMU ESG Screened UCITS ETF EUR (Acc)) and CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SAUM.L is a Europe Equities fund tracking the MSCI EMU NR EUR, while CNDX.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, SAUM.L returned 10.39%/yr vs 18.88%/yr for CNDX.L. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. SAUM.L charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CNDX.L.

Performance

SAUM.L vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares MSCI EMU ESG Screened UCITS ETF EUR (Acc) (SAUM.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

SAUM.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, SAUM.L achieves a 7.86% return, which is significantly lower than CNDX.L's 20.14% return.

SAUM.L

1D
0.58%
1M
5.64%
YTD
7.86%
6M
9.55%
1Y
20.35%
3Y*
15.71%
5Y*
10.39%
10Y*
—

CNDX.L

1D
-0.66%
1M
9.52%
YTD
20.14%
6M
18.27%
1Y
41.64%
3Y*
24.77%
5Y*
18.88%
10Y*
22.53%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
SAUM.L
iShares MSCI EMU ESG Screened UCITS ETF EUR (Acc)		7.86%28.60%4.78%17.25%-7.39%14.31%6.03%18.94%-3.56%
CNDX.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF		20.14%11.22%28.66%48.50%-25.54%29.17%43.97%32.82%-7.61%

Correlation

The correlation between SAUM.L and CNDX.L is 0.55, 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

0.55

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 24, 2018

0.60

The correlation between SAUM.L and CNDX.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors
SAUM.L
CNDX.L

Financial Services

26.6%
0.2%

Technology

17.7%
57.3%

Industrials

17.1%
2.8%

Consumer Cyclical

8.3%
11.6%

Utilities

6.5%
1.3%

Healthcare

5.6%
3.8%

Consumer Defensive

5.5%
6.9%

Communication Services

4.1%
14.5%

Energy

3.9%
0.5%

Basic Materials

3.7%
1.1%

Real Estate

1.0%
0.1%

Financial Services

SAUM.L
26.6%
CNDX.L
0.2%

Technology

SAUM.L
17.7%
CNDX.L
57.3%

Industrials

SAUM.L
17.1%
CNDX.L
2.8%

Consumer Cyclical

SAUM.L
8.3%
CNDX.L
11.6%

Utilities

SAUM.L
6.5%
CNDX.L
1.3%

Healthcare

SAUM.L
5.6%
CNDX.L
3.8%

Consumer Defensive

SAUM.L
5.5%
CNDX.L
6.9%

Communication Services

SAUM.L
4.1%
CNDX.L
14.5%

Energy

SAUM.L
3.9%
CNDX.L
0.5%

Basic Materials

SAUM.L
3.7%
CNDX.L
1.1%

Real Estate

SAUM.L
1.0%
CNDX.L
0.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares MSCI EMU ESG Screened UCITS ETF EUR (Acc)

iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF

Often compared with SAUM.L:
SAUM.L vs. SWPPXSAUM.L vs. QQQMSAUM.L vs. VUAG.LSAUM.L vs. WDEP.LSAUM.L vs. GLDSAUM.L vs. IUIT.LSAUM.L vs. FLXD.L
Often compared with CNDX.L:
CNDX.L vs. QQQCNDX.L vs. EQQQ.DECNDX.L vs. SXRV.DECNDX.L vs. CNX1.LCNDX.L vs. CSPX.LCNDX.L vs. EQQU.LCNDX.L vs. VWRA.L

Return for Risk

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
SAUM.L
SAUM.L Risk / Return Rank: 4242
Overall Rank
SAUM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4242
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SAUM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4343
Sortino Ratio Rank
SAUM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
SAUM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3939
Calmar Ratio Rank
SAUM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4141
Martin Ratio Rank
CNDX.L
CNDX.L Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7979
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7474
Omega Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI EMU ESG Screened UCITS ETF EUR (Acc) (SAUM.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.

SAUM.LCNDX.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.47
2.61

-1.14

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.11
3.49

-1.37

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

1.46

-0.19

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.86

3.70

-1.83

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.50

10.51

-4.01

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current SAUM.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.47, which is lower than the CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SAUM.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

SAUM.LCNDX.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.47

2.61

-1.14

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.61

0.94

-0.32

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

1.11

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.57

1.17

-0.60

Drawdowns

SAUM.L vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SAUM.L drawdown since its inception was -31.05%, which is greater than CNDX.L's maximum drawdown of -27.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SAUM.L and CNDX.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

SAUM.LCNDX.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-31.05%

-27.74%

-3.31%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.89%

-11.11%

+0.22%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.45%

-24.37%

+11.92%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.52%

-27.74%

+5.22%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-27.74%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.04%

-0.66%

+0.62%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.82%

-4.72%

-0.10%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.12%

3.93%

-0.81%

Volatility

SAUM.L vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI EMU ESG Screened UCITS ETF EUR (Acc) (SAUM.L) is 4.37%, while iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) has a volatility of 4.89%. This indicates that SAUM.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

SAUM.LCNDX.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.37%

4.89%

-0.52%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.38%

11.60%

-0.22%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.82%

15.74%

-1.92%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.88%

20.08%

-3.20%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.01%

20.20%

-1.19%

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

SAUM.L has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

SAUM.L vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither SAUM.L nor CNDX.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
SAUM.L
iShares MSCI EMU ESG Screened UCITS ETF EUR (Acc)		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

SAUM.L and CNDX.L have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, SAUM.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

SAUM.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CNDX.L.

SAUM.L is categorized as Europe Equities, while CNDX.L is Nasdaq-100. SAUM.L tracks MSCI EMU NR EUR, while CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for SAUM.L and 0.33% for CNDX.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for SAUM.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