XMAW.L vs. XNAQ.L
XMAW.L (Xtrackers MSCI AC World ESG Screened UCITS ETF 1C) and XNAQ.L (Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C) are both exchange-traded funds - XMAW.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD, while XNAQ.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XMAW.L returned 12.36%/yr vs 18.96%/yr for XNAQ.L. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XMAW.L charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XNAQ.L.
Performance
XMAW.L vs. XNAQ.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
XMAW.L is traded in GBp, while XNAQ.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the XNAQ.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XMAW.L achieves a 11.58% return, which is significantly lower than XNAQ.L's 19.89% return.
XMAW.L
- 1D
- -0.13%
- 1M
- 5.65%
- YTD
- 11.58%
- 6M
- 12.10%
- 1Y
- 30.53%
- 3Y*
- 18.30%
- 5Y*
- 12.36%
- 10Y*
- 13.42%
XNAQ.L
- 1D
- -0.63%
- 1M
- 9.63%
- YTD
- 19.89%
- 6M
- 18.46%
- 1Y
- 41.84%
- 3Y*
- 24.81%
- 5Y*
- 18.96%
- 10Y*
- —
XMAW.L vs. XNAQ.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XMAW.L Xtrackers MSCI AC World ESG Screened UCITS ETF 1C | 11.58% | 13.86% | 20.55% | 16.87% | -10.40% | 18.91% |
XNAQ.L Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C | 19.89% | 11.71% | 28.62% | 47.83% | -25.44% | 26.22% |
Correlation
The correlation between XMAW.L and XNAQ.L is 0.89, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.89 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.88 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.89 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 29, 2021 | 0.89 |
The correlation between XMAW.L and XNAQ.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.
XMAW.L vs. XNAQ.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XMAW.L
XNAQ.L
Technology
Financial Services
Industrials
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Healthcare
Basic Materials
Consumer Defensive
Energy
Real Estate
Utilities
Technology
XMAW.L
XNAQ.L
Financial Services
XMAW.L
XNAQ.L
Industrials
XMAW.L
XNAQ.L
Communication Services
XMAW.L
XNAQ.L
Consumer Cyclical
XMAW.L
XNAQ.L
Healthcare
XMAW.L
XNAQ.L
Basic Materials
XMAW.L
XNAQ.L
Consumer Defensive
XMAW.L
XNAQ.L
Energy
XMAW.L
XNAQ.L
Real Estate
XMAW.L
XNAQ.L
Utilities
XMAW.L
XNAQ.L
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
XMAW.L vs. XNAQ.L — Risk / Return Rank
XMAW.L
XNAQ.L
XMAW.L vs. XNAQ.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI AC World ESG Screened UCITS ETF 1C (XMAW.L) and Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.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.
| XMAW.L | XNAQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.09 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.07 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.52 | 1.50 | +0.02 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.12 | 3.79 | +0.34 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 16.61 | 11.13 | +5.48 |
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
| XMAW.L | XNAQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.74 | 2.83 | -0.09 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.92 | 1.00 | -0.07 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.92 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.86 | 0.93 | -0.07 |
Drawdowns
XMAW.L vs. XNAQ.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XMAW.L drawdown since its inception was -25.05%, smaller than the maximum XNAQ.L drawdown of -27.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMAW.L and XNAQ.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XMAW.L | XNAQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -25.05% | -27.52% | +2.47% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.37% | -10.99% | +3.62% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -18.92% | -24.56% | +5.64% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -18.92% | -27.52% | +8.60% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -25.05% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.49% | -0.63% | +0.14% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.83% | -7.01% | +3.18% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.83% | 3.75% | -1.92% |
Volatility
XMAW.L vs. XNAQ.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Xtrackers MSCI AC World ESG Screened UCITS ETF 1C (XMAW.L) is 3.05%, while Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.L) has a volatility of 4.18%. This indicates that XMAW.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XNAQ.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XMAW.L | XNAQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.05% | 4.18% | -1.13% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.23% | 10.38% | -2.15% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 11.09% | 14.73% | -3.64% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.40% | 19.04% | -5.64% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 14.60% | 19.13% | -4.53% |
XMAW.L vs. XNAQ.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
XMAW.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than XNAQ.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
XMAW.L vs. XNAQ.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither XMAW.L nor XNAQ.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
XMAW.L and XNAQ.L have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, XNAQ.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XNAQ.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for XMAW.L.
XMAW.L is categorized as Global Equities, while XNAQ.L is Nasdaq-100. XMAW.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD, while XNAQ.L tracks Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XMAW.L and 0.20% for XNAQ.L.
Find the right allocation for XMAW.L and XNAQ.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