XMUS.L vs. XNAQ.L
XMUS.L (Xtrackers MSCI USA Swap UCITS ETF 1C) and XNAQ.L (Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C) are both exchange-traded funds - XMUS.L is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 TR 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, XMUS.L returned 14.65%/yr vs 19.11%/yr for XNAQ.L. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XMUS.L charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XNAQ.L.
Performance
XMUS.L vs. XNAQ.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
XMUS.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, XMUS.L achieves a 10.43% return, which is significantly lower than XNAQ.L's 20.65% 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%
XNAQ.L
- 1D
- 0.17%
- 1M
- 11.88%
- YTD
- 20.65%
- 6M
- 19.23%
- 1Y
- 42.83%
- 3Y*
- 25.51%
- 5Y*
- 19.11%
- 10Y*
- —
XMUS.L vs. XNAQ.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XMUS.L Xtrackers MSCI USA Swap UCITS ETF 1C | 10.43% | 9.35% | 27.51% | 20.67% | -10.46% | 27.47% |
XNAQ.L Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C | 20.65% | 11.71% | 28.62% | 47.83% | -25.44% | 26.22% |
Correlation
The correlation between XMUS.L and XNAQ.L is 0.91, 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 | 0.91 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.92 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.92 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 29, 2021 | 0.92 |
The correlation between XMUS.L and XNAQ.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.
XMUS.L vs. XNAQ.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XMUS.L
XNAQ.L
Technology
Financial Services
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Healthcare
Industrials
Consumer Defensive
Energy
Utilities
Real Estate
Basic Materials
Technology
XMUS.L
XNAQ.L
Financial Services
XMUS.L
XNAQ.L
Communication Services
XMUS.L
XNAQ.L
Consumer Cyclical
XMUS.L
XNAQ.L
Healthcare
XMUS.L
XNAQ.L
Industrials
XMUS.L
XNAQ.L
Consumer Defensive
XMUS.L
XNAQ.L
Energy
XMUS.L
XNAQ.L
Utilities
XMUS.L
XNAQ.L
Real Estate
XMUS.L
XNAQ.L
Basic Materials
XMUS.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
XMUS.L vs. XNAQ.L — Risk / Return Rank
XMUS.L
XNAQ.L
XMUS.L vs. XNAQ.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 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.
| XMUS.L | XNAQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.20 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.19 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.50 | 1.51 | -0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.74 | 3.88 | -0.14 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.96 | 11.39 | +1.57 |
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
| XMUS.L | XNAQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.69 | 2.90 | -0.20 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.01 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 1.04 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.75 | 0.94 | -0.18 |
Drawdowns
XMUS.L vs. XNAQ.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XMUS.L drawdown since its inception was -34.33%, 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 XMUS.L and XNAQ.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XMUS.L | XNAQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -34.33% | -27.52% | -6.81% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.68% | -10.99% | +3.31% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -21.47% | -24.56% | +3.09% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -21.47% | -27.52% | +6.05% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -25.90% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.20% | 0.00% | -0.20% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.71% | -7.01% | +2.30% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.22% | 3.75% | -1.53% |
Volatility
XMUS.L vs. XNAQ.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Xtrackers MSCI USA Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XMUS.L) is 2.62%, while Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.L) has a volatility of 4.13%. This indicates that XMUS.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
| XMUS.L | XNAQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.62% | 4.13% | -1.51% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.26% | 10.36% | -3.10% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.73% | 14.79% | -4.06% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.55% | 19.04% | -4.49% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.72% | 19.14% | -3.42% |
XMUS.L vs. XNAQ.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
XMUS.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than XNAQ.L's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
XMUS.L vs. XNAQ.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither XMUS.L nor XNAQ.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.91, XMUS.L and XNAQ.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
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 0.20% for XNAQ.L.
XMUS.L is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while XNAQ.L is Nasdaq-100. XMUS.L tracks Russell 1000 TR USD, while XNAQ.L tracks Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for XMUS.L and 0.20% for XNAQ.L.
Find the right allocation for XMUS.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