PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
UC15.L vs. QQQ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

UC15.L vs. QQQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in UBS ETF (IE) CMCI Composite SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (UC15.L) and Invesco QQQ ETF (QQQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

UC15.L is traded in GBp, while QQQ is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the QQQ values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UC15.L achieves a 21.92% return, which is significantly higher than QQQ's 16.07% return. Over the past 10 years, UC15.L has underperformed QQQ with an annualized return of 9.48%, while QQQ has yielded a comparatively higher 22.22% annualized return.


UC15.L

1D
1.03%
1M
0.80%
YTD
21.92%
6M
21.98%
1Y
30.79%
3Y*
10.61%
5Y*
12.57%
10Y*
9.48%

QQQ

1D
0.00%
1M
1.31%
YTD
16.07%
6M
13.08%
1Y
35.57%
3Y*
24.03%
5Y*
17.94%
10Y*
22.22%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

UC15.L vs. QQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
UC15.L
UBS ETF (IE) CMCI Composite SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc
21.92%2.29%6.44%-6.52%29.97%36.11%-2.49%5.31%-5.75%-2.28%
QQQ
Invesco QQQ ETF
17.85%12.17%27.77%47.12%-24.56%28.63%44.26%33.67%5.80%21.19%

Correlation

The correlation between UC15.L and QQQ is 0.04, 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

0.04

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

0.08

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

0.03

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

0.16

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 21, 2010

0.20

The correlation between UC15.L and QQQ shifts across timeframes, from 0.03 (5 years) to 0.20 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

UC15.L vs. QQQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
UC15.L
QQQ

Technology

31.0%
53.8%

Communication Services

15.0%
15.8%

Energy

14.2%
0.6%

Financial Services

10.9%
0.2%

Healthcare

9.8%
4.2%

Consumer Cyclical

7.3%
12.3%

Industrials

6.6%
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

3.7%
7.7%

Utilities

1.1%
1.4%

Basic Materials

0.5%
1.1%

Real Estate

-

0.1%

Technology

UC15.L
31.0%
QQQ
53.8%

Communication Services

UC15.L
15.0%
QQQ
15.8%

Energy

UC15.L
14.2%
QQQ
0.6%

Financial Services

UC15.L
10.9%
QQQ
0.2%

Healthcare

UC15.L
9.8%
QQQ
4.2%

Consumer Cyclical

UC15.L
7.3%
QQQ
12.3%

Industrials

UC15.L
6.6%
QQQ
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

UC15.L
3.7%
QQQ
7.7%

Utilities

UC15.L
1.1%
QQQ
1.4%

Basic Materials

UC15.L
0.5%
QQQ
1.1%

Real Estate

UC15.L

-

QQQ
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.


Return for Risk

UC15.L vs. QQQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

UC15.L
UC15.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
UC15.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UC15.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
UC15.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
UC15.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
UC15.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
Martin Ratio Rank

QQQ
QQQ Risk / Return Rank: 6969
Overall Rank
QQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7474
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
QQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
QQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
QQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 6868
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.

UC15.L vs. QQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for UBS ETF (IE) CMCI Composite SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (UC15.L) and Invesco QQQ ETF (QQQ). 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.


UC15.LQQQDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.08

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.03

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.40

1.41

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.97

3.01

+1.96

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.45

9.04

+4.40

UC15.L vs. QQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UC15.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.18, which is comparable to the QQQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UC15.L and QQQ, 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


UC15.LQQQDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.18

2.26

-0.08

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.64

0.85

-0.21

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.55

1.00

-0.46

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.01

0.85

-0.84

Drawdowns

UC15.L vs. QQQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UC15.L drawdown since its inception was -98.86%, which is greater than QQQ's maximum drawdown of -34.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UC15.L and QQQ.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


UC15.LQQQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-98.86%

-34.25%

-64.61%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.17%

-11.89%

+5.72%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.74%

-24.87%

-0.87%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.74%

-27.87%

+2.13%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-30.26%

-27.87%

-2.39%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.19%

-4.69%

+1.50%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-17.24%

-5.47%

-11.77%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.28%

3.94%

-1.66%

Volatility

UC15.L vs. QQQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for UBS ETF (IE) CMCI Composite SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (UC15.L) is 4.38%, while Invesco QQQ ETF (QQQ) has a volatility of 5.97%. This indicates that UC15.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


UC15.LQQQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.38%

5.97%

-1.59%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.26%

11.77%

-0.51%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.07%

15.84%

-1.77%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.61%

21.19%

-1.58%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.37%

22.26%

-4.89%

UC15.L vs. QQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

UC15.L has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQ's 0.18% expense ratio.


Dividends

UC15.L vs. QQQ - Dividend Comparison

UC15.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.39%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
QQQ
Invesco QQQ ETF
0.39%0.45%0.56%0.62%0.80%0.43%0.55%0.74%0.91%0.84%1.06%0.99%
UC15.L
UBS ETF (IE) CMCI Composite SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-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


UC15.L and QQQ have a correlation of 0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, QQQ is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

QQQ is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for UC15.L.

UC15.L is categorized as Commodities, while QQQ is Nasdaq-100. UC15.L tracks UBS CMCI, while QQQ tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. They also come from different issuers: UBS and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for UC15.L and 0.18% for QQQ.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for UC15.L and QQQ

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