PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XDWM.L vs. XNAS.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XDWM.L vs. XNAS.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI World Materials UCITS ETF 1C (XDWM.L) and Xtrackers NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (XNAS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XDWM.L achieves a 15.43% return, which is significantly lower than XNAS.L's 19.67% return.


XDWM.L

1D
-0.45%
1M
3.35%
YTD
15.43%
6M
20.04%
1Y
32.13%
3Y*
15.48%
5Y*
6.89%
10Y*
10.95%

XNAS.L

1D
-0.68%
1M
8.53%
YTD
19.67%
6M
19.16%
1Y
40.41%
3Y*
28.10%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XDWM.L vs. XNAS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
XDWM.L
Xtrackers MSCI World Materials UCITS ETF 1C
15.43%26.77%-6.34%14.84%13.80%
XNAS.L
Xtrackers NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF
19.67%19.83%26.60%56.41%-1.82%

Correlation

The correlation between XDWM.L and XNAS.L is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.49

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

0.53

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2022

0.56

The correlation between XDWM.L and XNAS.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.49 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.

XDWM.L vs. XNAS.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
XDWM.L
XNAS.L

Basic Materials

94.8%
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

4.2%
12.2%

Technology

0.6%
53.7%

Consumer Defensive

0.4%
7.7%

Industrials

0.4%
3.1%

Communication Services

-

15.8%

Energy

-

0.6%

Financial Services

-

0.2%

Healthcare

-

4.2%

Real Estate

-

0.1%

Utilities

-

1.4%

Basic Materials

XDWM.L
94.8%
XNAS.L
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

XDWM.L
4.2%
XNAS.L
12.2%

Technology

XDWM.L
0.6%
XNAS.L
53.7%

Consumer Defensive

XDWM.L
0.4%
XNAS.L
7.7%

Industrials

XDWM.L
0.4%
XNAS.L
3.1%

Communication Services

XDWM.L

-

XNAS.L
15.8%

Energy

XDWM.L

-

XNAS.L
0.6%

Financial Services

XDWM.L

-

XNAS.L
0.2%

Healthcare

XDWM.L

-

XNAS.L
4.2%

Real Estate

XDWM.L

-

XNAS.L
0.1%

Utilities

XDWM.L

-

XNAS.L
1.4%

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

XDWM.L vs. XNAS.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XDWM.L
XDWM.L Risk / Return Rank: 4747
Overall Rank
XDWM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4949
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XDWM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4848
Sortino Ratio Rank
XDWM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4646
Omega Ratio Rank
XDWM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4343
Calmar Ratio Rank
XDWM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4848
Martin Ratio Rank

XNAS.L
XNAS.L Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
XNAS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8080
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XNAS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
XNAS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
XNAS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
XNAS.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.

XDWM.L vs. XNAS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI World Materials UCITS ETF 1C (XDWM.L) and Xtrackers NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (XNAS.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.


XDWM.LXNAS.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.87

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.19

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.44

-0.15

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.08

3.67

-1.58

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.00

13.19

-5.18

XDWM.L vs. XNAS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XDWM.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is lower than the XNAS.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XDWM.L and XNAS.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


XDWM.LXNAS.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.66

2.54

-0.87

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.35

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.71

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.73

1.69

-0.95

Drawdowns

XDWM.L vs. XNAS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XDWM.L drawdown since its inception was -37.37%, which is greater than XNAS.L's maximum drawdown of -22.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XDWM.L and XNAS.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XDWM.LXNAS.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-37.37%

-22.92%

-14.45%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-15.35%

-10.91%

-4.44%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.45%

-22.92%

+1.47%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.07%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-37.37%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.42%

-0.76%

-2.66%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.28%

-3.03%

-4.25%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.01%

3.05%

+0.96%

Volatility

XDWM.L vs. XNAS.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers MSCI World Materials UCITS ETF 1C (XDWM.L) has a higher volatility of 7.56% compared to Xtrackers NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (XNAS.L) at 4.96%. This indicates that XDWM.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XNAS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XDWM.LXNAS.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.56%

4.96%

+2.60%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.49%

11.72%

+4.77%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.27%

15.78%

+3.49%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.72%

19.39%

+0.33%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.61%

19.39%

+4.22%

XDWM.L vs. XNAS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XDWM.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than XNAS.L's 0.20% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

XDWM.L vs. XNAS.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XDWM.L nor XNAS.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


XDWM.L and XNAS.L have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

XNAS.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for XDWM.L.

XDWM.L is categorized as Industrials Equities, while XNAS.L is Nasdaq-100. XDWM.L tracks MSCI World/Materials NR USD, while XNAS.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XDWM.L and 0.20% for XNAS.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XDWM.L and XNAS.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