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

Performance

SPGP.L vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares Gold Producers UCITS ETF (SPGP.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

SPGP.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, SPGP.L achieves a 1.44% return, which is significantly lower than CNDX.L's 20.90% return. Over the past 10 years, SPGP.L has underperformed CNDX.L with an annualized return of 14.96%, while CNDX.L has yielded a comparatively higher 22.61% annualized return.


SPGP.L

1D
0.61%
1M
0.17%
YTD
1.44%
6M
6.67%
1Y
64.79%
3Y*
38.31%
5Y*
19.91%
10Y*
14.96%

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

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
SPGP.L
iShares Gold Producers UCITS ETF
1.44%137.41%12.81%3.72%-0.45%-9.15%19.43%41.00%-4.37%-2.80%
CNDX.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF
20.90%11.22%28.66%48.50%-25.54%29.17%43.97%32.82%4.84%20.91%

Correlation

The correlation between SPGP.L and CNDX.L is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.22

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

0.12

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

0.10

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

0.11

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 21, 2011

0.07

The correlation between SPGP.L and CNDX.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.07 (all time) to 0.22 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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


Sectors
SPGP.L
CNDX.L

Basic Materials

99.8%
1.1%

Industrials

0.2%
2.8%

Communication Services

-

14.5%

Consumer Cyclical

-

11.6%

Consumer Defensive

-

6.9%

Energy

-

0.5%

Financial Services

-

0.2%

Healthcare

-

3.8%

Real Estate

-

0.1%

Technology

-

57.3%

Utilities

-

1.3%

Basic Materials

SPGP.L
99.8%
CNDX.L
1.1%

Industrials

SPGP.L
0.2%
CNDX.L
2.8%

Communication Services

SPGP.L

-

CNDX.L
14.5%

Consumer Cyclical

SPGP.L

-

CNDX.L
11.6%

Consumer Defensive

SPGP.L

-

CNDX.L
6.9%

Energy

SPGP.L

-

CNDX.L
0.5%

Financial Services

SPGP.L

-

CNDX.L
0.2%

Healthcare

SPGP.L

-

CNDX.L
3.8%

Real Estate

SPGP.L

-

CNDX.L
0.1%

Technology

SPGP.L

-

CNDX.L
57.3%

Utilities

SPGP.L

-

CNDX.L
1.3%

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

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

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

SPGP.L
SPGP.L Risk / Return Rank: 4343
Overall Rank
SPGP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4747
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SPGP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4141
Sortino Ratio Rank
SPGP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4242
Omega Ratio Rank
SPGP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4848
Calmar Ratio Rank
SPGP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3939
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Producers UCITS ETF (SPGP.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.


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

-1.06

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.50

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

1.47

-0.20

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.33

3.77

-1.44

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.97

10.74

-4.76

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

The current SPGP.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.60, which is lower than the CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SPGP.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


SPGP.LCNDX.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.60

2.66

-1.06

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.63

0.94

-0.31

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.46

1.12

-0.65

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.12

1.17

-1.05

Drawdowns

SPGP.L vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SPGP.L drawdown since its inception was -79.54%, 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 SPGP.L and CNDX.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


SPGP.LCNDX.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-79.54%

-27.74%

-51.80%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-27.66%

-11.11%

-16.55%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-27.66%

-24.37%

-3.29%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-34.81%

-27.74%

-7.07%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-43.71%

-27.74%

-15.97%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-24.04%

0.00%

-24.04%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-42.31%

-4.72%

-37.59%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

10.81%

3.93%

+6.88%

Volatility

SPGP.L vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares Gold Producers UCITS ETF (SPGP.L) has a higher volatility of 13.10% compared to iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) at 4.87%. This indicates that SPGP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CNDX.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


SPGP.LCNDX.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.10%

4.87%

+8.23%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

32.23%

11.61%

+20.62%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

40.28%

15.74%

+24.54%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

31.56%

20.08%

+11.48%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

32.31%

20.20%

+12.11%

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

SPGP.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.


Dividends

SPGP.L vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither SPGP.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%
SPGP.L
iShares Gold Producers UCITS ETF
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


SPGP.L and CNDX.L have a correlation of 0.22, 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 0.55% for SPGP.L.

SPGP.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while CNDX.L is Nasdaq-100. SPGP.L tracks EMIX Global Mining Global Gold TR USD, while CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for SPGP.L and 0.33% for CNDX.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for SPGP.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