SGLN.L vs. CNDX.L
SGLN.L (iShares Physical Gold ETC) and CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SGLN.L is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price, while CNDX.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, SGLN.L returned 14.27%/yr vs 22.61%/yr for CNDX.L. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SGLN.L charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CNDX.L.
Performance
SGLN.L vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
SGLN.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, SGLN.L achieves a 3.89% return, which is significantly lower than CNDX.L's 20.90% return. Over the past 10 years, SGLN.L has underperformed CNDX.L with an annualized return of 14.27%, while CNDX.L has yielded a comparatively higher 22.61% annualized return.
SGLN.L
- 1D
- 0.70%
- 1M
- -1.36%
- YTD
- 3.89%
- 6M
- 5.42%
- 1Y
- 33.75%
- 3Y*
- 28.17%
- 5Y*
- 20.12%
- 10Y*
- 14.27%
CNDX.L
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 10.21%
- YTD
- 20.90%
- 6M
- 19.02%
- 1Y
- 42.53%
- 3Y*
- 25.03%
- 5Y*
- 19.03%
- 10Y*
- 22.61%
SGLN.L vs. CNDX.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SGLN.L iShares Physical Gold ETC | 3.89% | 53.66% | 28.20% | 7.24% | 11.84% | -2.57% | 19.62% | 14.63% | 4.36% | 1.68% |
CNDX.L iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF | 20.14% | 11.22% | 28.66% | 48.50% | -25.54% | 29.17% | 43.97% | 32.82% | 4.84% | 20.91% |
Correlation
The correlation between SGLN.L and CNDX.L is 0.10, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.10 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.00 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.04 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.03 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 13, 2011 | 0.02 |
The correlation between SGLN.L and CNDX.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.04 (5 years) to 0.10 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
SGLN.L vs. CNDX.L — Risk / Return Rank
SGLN.L
CNDX.L
SGLN.L vs. CNDX.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Physical Gold ETC (SGLN.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.
| SGLN.L | CNDX.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.21 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.67 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.47 | -0.18 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.91 | 3.77 | -1.86 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.05 | 10.74 | -5.69 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| SGLN.L | CNDX.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.45 | 2.66 | -1.21 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.23 | 0.94 | +0.29 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.90 | 1.12 | -0.21 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.55 | 1.17 | -0.63 |
Drawdowns
SGLN.L vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SGLN.L drawdown since its inception was -41.71%, 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 SGLN.L and CNDX.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SGLN.L | CNDX.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -41.71% | -27.74% | -13.97% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -17.57% | -11.11% | -6.46% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.57% | -24.37% | +6.80% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -17.57% | -27.74% | +10.17% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -21.91% | -27.74% | +5.83% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -16.01% | 0.00% | -16.01% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -14.76% | -4.72% | -10.04% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.67% | 3.93% | +2.74% |
Volatility
SGLN.L vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares Physical Gold ETC (SGLN.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) have volatilities of 5.08% and 4.87%, 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
| SGLN.L | CNDX.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.08% | 4.87% | +0.21% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 20.08% | 11.61% | +8.47% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.19% | 15.74% | +7.45% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.30% | 20.08% | -3.78% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.78% | 20.20% | -4.42% |
SGLN.L vs. CNDX.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
SGLN.L has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.
Dividends
SGLN.L vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither SGLN.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% |
SGLN.L iShares Physical Gold ETC | 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
SGLN.L and CNDX.L have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, SGLN.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
SGLN.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CNDX.L.
SGLN.L is categorized as Gold, while CNDX.L is Nasdaq-100. SGLN.L tracks LBMA Gold Price, while CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for SGLN.L and 0.33% for CNDX.L.
Find the right allocation for SGLN.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