PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XMBR.L vs. XNAQ.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XMBR.L vs. XNAQ.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI Brazil UCITS ETF 1C (XMBR.L) and Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

XMBR.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, XMBR.L achieves a 9.05% return, which is significantly lower than XNAQ.L's 19.89% return.


XMBR.L

1D
-0.49%
1M
-11.96%
YTD
9.05%
6M
3.14%
1Y
34.54%
3Y*
8.46%
5Y*
5.76%
10Y*
8.80%

XNAQ.L

1D
-0.63%
1M
9.63%
YTD
19.89%
6M
18.46%
1Y
41.84%
3Y*
24.81%
5Y*
18.96%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XMBR.L vs. XNAQ.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
XMBR.L
Xtrackers MSCI Brazil UCITS ETF 1C
9.05%38.26%-28.61%25.42%25.85%-11.98%
XNAQ.L
Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C
19.89%11.71%28.62%47.83%-25.44%26.22%

Correlation

The correlation between XMBR.L and XNAQ.L is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.29

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

0.27

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

0.26

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 29, 2021

0.27

XMBR.L vs. XNAQ.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
XMBR.L
XNAQ.L

Financial Services

33.2%
0.2%

Energy

18.9%
0.6%

Basic Materials

13.7%
1.1%

Utilities

12.7%
1.4%

Industrials

10.8%
3.1%

Consumer Defensive

4.2%
7.7%

Healthcare

2.2%
4.2%

Communication Services

2.0%
15.8%

Consumer Cyclical

1.3%
12.2%

Technology

1.1%
53.7%

Real Estate

-

0.1%

Financial Services

XMBR.L
33.2%
XNAQ.L
0.2%

Energy

XMBR.L
18.9%
XNAQ.L
0.6%

Basic Materials

XMBR.L
13.7%
XNAQ.L
1.1%

Utilities

XMBR.L
12.7%
XNAQ.L
1.4%

Industrials

XMBR.L
10.8%
XNAQ.L
3.1%

Consumer Defensive

XMBR.L
4.2%
XNAQ.L
7.7%

Healthcare

XMBR.L
2.2%
XNAQ.L
4.2%

Communication Services

XMBR.L
2.0%
XNAQ.L
15.8%

Consumer Cyclical

XMBR.L
1.3%
XNAQ.L
12.2%

Technology

XMBR.L
1.1%
XNAQ.L
53.7%

Real Estate

XMBR.L

-

XNAQ.L
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

XMBR.L vs. XNAQ.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XMBR.L
XMBR.L Risk / Return Rank: 4545
Overall Rank
XMBR.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4848
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMBR.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4545
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMBR.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4545
Omega Ratio Rank
XMBR.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4444
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMBR.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4545
Martin Ratio Rank

XNAQ.L
XNAQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
XNAQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8686
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XNAQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
XNAQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8383
Omega Ratio Rank
XNAQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
XNAQ.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.

XMBR.L vs. XNAQ.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI Brazil UCITS ETF 1C (XMBR.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.


XMBR.LXNAQ.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.20

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.50

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.50

-0.21

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.14

3.79

-1.65

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.28

11.13

-3.84

XMBR.L vs. XNAQ.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMBR.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.63, which is lower than the XNAQ.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMBR.L and XNAQ.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


XMBR.LXNAQ.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.63

2.83

-1.20

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.22

1.00

-0.77

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.28

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.09

0.93

-0.83

Drawdowns

XMBR.L vs. XNAQ.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMBR.L drawdown since its inception was -72.01%, which is greater than XNAQ.L's maximum drawdown of -27.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMBR.L and XNAQ.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XMBR.LXNAQ.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-72.01%

-27.52%

-44.49%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-16.06%

-10.99%

-5.07%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-29.72%

-24.56%

-5.16%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-30.62%

-27.52%

-3.10%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-53.50%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-16.06%

-0.63%

-15.43%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-27.83%

-7.01%

-20.82%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.73%

3.75%

+0.98%

Volatility

XMBR.L vs. XNAQ.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers MSCI Brazil UCITS ETF 1C (XMBR.L) has a higher volatility of 5.57% compared to Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.L) at 4.18%. This indicates that XMBR.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XNAQ.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XMBR.LXNAQ.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.57%

4.18%

+1.39%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.44%

10.38%

+7.06%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

21.08%

14.73%

+6.35%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

25.88%

19.04%

+6.84%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

31.26%

19.13%

+12.13%

XMBR.L vs. XNAQ.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMBR.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than XNAQ.L's 0.20% expense ratio.


Dividends

XMBR.L vs. XNAQ.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XMBR.L nor XNAQ.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


XMBR.L and XNAQ.L have a correlation of 0.29, 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 0.65% for XMBR.L.

XMBR.L is categorized as Latin America Equities, while XNAQ.L is Nasdaq-100. XMBR.L tracks MSCI Brazil NR USD, while XNAQ.L tracks Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for XMBR.L and 0.20% for XNAQ.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMBR.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