PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
SPLT.L vs. CNX1.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

SPLT.L vs. CNX1.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares Physical Platinum ETC (SPLT.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CNX1.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SPLT.L achieves a -5.28% return, which is significantly lower than CNX1.L's 19.85% return. Over the past 10 years, SPLT.L has underperformed CNX1.L with an annualized return of 7.15%, while CNX1.L has yielded a comparatively higher 22.43% annualized return.


SPLT.L

1D
0.20%
1M
-2.87%
YTD
-5.28%
6M
14.16%
1Y
74.34%
3Y*
18.81%
5Y*
11.07%
10Y*
7.15%

CNX1.L

1D
-0.63%
1M
9.63%
YTD
19.85%
6M
18.42%
1Y
41.69%
3Y*
24.68%
5Y*
18.83%
10Y*
22.43%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
SPLT.L
iShares Physical Platinum ETC
-5.28%104.63%-8.37%-10.78%23.96%-10.18%7.04%17.70%-9.90%-6.89%
CNX1.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
19.85%11.57%28.51%47.71%-25.53%29.50%43.24%33.63%4.62%20.13%

Correlation

The correlation between SPLT.L and CNX1.L is 0.19, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.19

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

0.12

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

0.13

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

0.19

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 13, 2011

0.17

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

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

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

SPLT.L
SPLT.L Risk / Return Rank: 4141
Overall Rank
SPLT.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4646
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SPLT.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3939
Sortino Ratio Rank
SPLT.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4545
Omega Ratio Rank
SPLT.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4545
Calmar Ratio Rank
SPLT.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3131
Martin Ratio Rank

CNX1.L
CNX1.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
CNX1.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8686
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: 6262
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Physical Platinum ETC (SPLT.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.


SPLT.LCNX1.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.25

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.76

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.50

-0.21

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.18

3.76

-1.58

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.51

11.10

-6.58

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

The current SPLT.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.57, which is lower than the CNX1.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SPLT.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


SPLT.LCNX1.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.57

2.82

-1.25

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.36

0.98

-0.62

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.26

1.16

-0.90

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.05

1.14

-1.09

Drawdowns

SPLT.L vs. CNX1.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SPLT.L drawdown since its inception was -58.05%, 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 SPLT.L and CNX1.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


SPLT.LCNX1.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-58.05%

-27.56%

-30.49%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-33.87%

-11.03%

-22.84%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-33.87%

-24.56%

-9.31%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-33.87%

-27.56%

-6.31%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.00%

-27.56%

-17.44%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-32.43%

-0.63%

-31.80%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-34.19%

-4.57%

-29.62%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

16.41%

3.75%

+12.66%

Volatility

SPLT.L vs. CNX1.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares Physical Platinum ETC (SPLT.L) has a higher volatility of 10.95% compared to iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CNX1.L) at 4.13%. This indicates that SPLT.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CNX1.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


SPLT.LCNX1.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.95%

4.13%

+6.82%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

41.59%

10.38%

+31.21%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

47.08%

14.70%

+32.38%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

30.48%

19.16%

+11.32%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

27.92%

19.44%

+8.48%

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

SPLT.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than CNX1.L's 0.36% expense ratio.


Dividends

SPLT.L vs. CNX1.L - Dividend Comparison

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


SPLT.L and CNX1.L have a correlation of 0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, SPLT.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

SPLT.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.36% for CNX1.L.

SPLT.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while CNX1.L is Nasdaq-100. SPLT.L tracks Platinum, while CNX1.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for SPLT.L and 0.36% for CNX1.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for SPLT.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