PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XMUS.L vs. CNDX.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XMUS.L vs. CNDX.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XMUS.L (Xtrackers MSCI USA Swap UCITS ETF 1C) and CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XMUS.L is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 TR USD, while CNDX.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XMUS.L returned 16.36%/yr vs 22.74%/yr for CNDX.L. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XMUS.L charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.33%/yr for CNDX.L.

Performance

XMUS.L vs. CNDX.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI USA Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XMUS.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMUS.L achieves a 10.43% return, which is significantly lower than CNDX.L's 20.90% return. Over the past 10 years, XMUS.L has underperformed CNDX.L with an annualized return of 16.36%, while CNDX.L has yielded a comparatively higher 22.74% annualized return.

XMUS.L

1D
-0.20%
1M
5.96%
YTD
10.43%
6M
10.35%
1Y
28.82%
3Y*
19.51%
5Y*
14.65%
10Y*
16.36%

CNDX.L

1D
0.16%
1M
11.63%
YTD
20.90%
6M
19.16%
1Y
42.84%
3Y*
25.37%
5Y*
19.03%
10Y*
22.74%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XMUS.L vs. CNDX.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XMUS.L
Xtrackers MSCI USA Swap UCITS ETF 1C		10.43%9.35%27.51%20.67%-10.46%29.34%16.78%26.80%0.08%10.99%
CNDX.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF		20.90%11.22%28.66%48.50%-25.54%29.17%43.97%32.82%4.84%20.91%

Correlation

The correlation between XMUS.L and CNDX.L is 0.87, 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

0.87

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

0.88

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

0.87

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

0.86

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2010

0.79

The correlation between XMUS.L and CNDX.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

XMUS.L vs. CNDX.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XMUS.L
CNDX.L

Technology

35.4%
57.3%

Financial Services

11.6%
0.2%

Communication Services

11.3%
14.5%

Consumer Cyclical

10.1%
11.6%

Healthcare

8.6%
3.8%

Industrials

8.6%
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

4.8%
6.9%

Energy

3.6%
0.5%

Utilities

2.3%
1.3%

Real Estate

1.9%
0.1%

Basic Materials

1.8%
1.1%

Technology

XMUS.L
35.4%
CNDX.L
57.3%

Financial Services

XMUS.L
11.6%
CNDX.L
0.2%

Communication Services

XMUS.L
11.3%
CNDX.L
14.5%

Consumer Cyclical

XMUS.L
10.1%
CNDX.L
11.6%

Healthcare

XMUS.L
8.6%
CNDX.L
3.8%

Industrials

XMUS.L
8.6%
CNDX.L
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

XMUS.L
4.8%
CNDX.L
6.9%

Energy

XMUS.L
3.6%
CNDX.L
0.5%

Utilities

XMUS.L
2.3%
CNDX.L
1.3%

Real Estate

XMUS.L
1.9%
CNDX.L
0.1%

Basic Materials

XMUS.L
1.8%
CNDX.L
1.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Xtrackers MSCI USA Swap UCITS ETF 1C

iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF

Often compared with XMUS.L:
XMUS.L vs. XD9U.DEXMUS.L vs. SXR8.DEXMUS.L vs. FRUE.LXMUS.L vs. MVEA.LXMUS.L vs. EXUS.LXMUS.L vs. UC95.LXMUS.L vs. ISDU.L
Often compared with CNDX.L:
CNDX.L vs. QQQCNDX.L vs. EQQQ.DECNDX.L vs. SXRV.DECNDX.L vs. CNX1.LCNDX.L vs. CSPX.LCNDX.L vs. EQQU.LCNDX.L vs. VWRA.L

Return for Risk

XMUS.L vs. CNDX.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XMUS.L
XMUS.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
XMUS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMUS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMUS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8383
Omega Ratio Rank
XMUS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMUS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7070
Martin Ratio Rank
CNDX.L
CNDX.L Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7979
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7474
Omega Ratio Rank
CNDX.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7474
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNDX.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.

XMUS.L vs. CNDX.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI USA Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XMUS.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.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.

XMUS.LCNDX.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.69
2.68

+0.01

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.59
3.58

+0.02

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.50

1.48

+0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.74

3.80

-0.07

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.96

10.82

+2.14

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XMUS.L vs. CNDX.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMUS.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.69, which is comparable to the CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMUS.L and CNDX.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

XMUS.LCNDX.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.69

2.68

+0.01

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.01

0.95

+0.06

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

1.04

1.12

-0.08

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.75

1.18

-0.42

Drawdowns

XMUS.L vs. CNDX.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMUS.L drawdown since its inception was -34.33%, which is greater than CNDX.L's maximum drawdown of -27.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMUS.L and CNDX.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XMUS.LCNDX.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.33%

-27.74%

-6.59%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.68%

-11.11%

+3.43%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.47%

-24.37%

+2.90%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.47%

-27.74%

+6.27%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-25.90%

-27.74%

+1.84%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.20%

0.00%

-0.20%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.71%

-4.72%

+0.01%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.22%

3.93%

-1.71%

Volatility

XMUS.L vs. CNDX.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers MSCI USA Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XMUS.L) is 2.62%, while iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) has a volatility of 4.91%. This indicates that XMUS.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNDX.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XMUS.LCNDX.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.62%

4.91%

-2.29%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.26%

11.61%

-4.35%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.73%

15.81%

-5.08%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.55%

20.08%

-5.53%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.72%

20.20%

-4.48%

XMUS.L vs. CNDX.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMUS.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than CNDX.L's 0.33% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMUS.L vs. CNDX.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XMUS.L nor CNDX.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CNDX.L
iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF		0.00%0.00%0.02%0.05%0.06%0.03%0.04%0.07%0.06%0.30%0.16%0.16%
XMUS.L
Xtrackers MSCI USA Swap UCITS ETF 1C		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

XMUS.L and CNDX.L have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XMUS.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XMUS.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CNDX.L.

XMUS.L is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while CNDX.L is Nasdaq-100. XMUS.L tracks Russell 1000 TR USD, while CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for XMUS.L and 0.33% for CNDX.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMUS.L and CNDX.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