XMVU.L vs. XNAQ.L
XMVU.L (Xtrackers MSCI USA Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF 1D) and XNAQ.L (Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C) are both exchange-traded funds - XMVU.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, XMVU.L returned 7.23%/yr vs 17.71%/yr for XNAQ.L. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.20% expense ratio.
Performance
XMVU.L vs. XNAQ.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
XMVU.L is traded in USD, while XNAQ.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the XNAQ.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XMVU.L achieves a 2.14% return, which is significantly lower than XNAQ.L's 19.60% return.
XMVU.L
- 1D
- -0.11%
- 1M
- 2.27%
- YTD
- 2.14%
- 6M
- 2.82%
- 1Y
- 4.34%
- 3Y*
- 11.56%
- 5Y*
- 7.23%
- 10Y*
- —
XNAQ.L
- 1D
- -0.58%
- 1M
- 8.70%
- YTD
- 19.60%
- 6M
- 19.33%
- 1Y
- 40.49%
- 3Y*
- 28.03%
- 5Y*
- 17.71%
- 10Y*
- —
XMVU.L vs. XNAQ.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XMVU.L Xtrackers MSCI USA Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF 1D | 2.14% | 7.94% | 15.67% | 9.79% | -9.53% | 21.08% |
XNAQ.L Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C | 19.60% | 20.14% | 26.48% | 55.63% | -33.41% | 24.52% |
Correlation
The correlation between XMVU.L and XNAQ.L is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.25 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.39 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.55 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 29, 2021 | 0.56 |
Over the past year, the correlation between XMVU.L and XNAQ.L has dropped to 0.25 - well below their long-term average of 0.56, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
XMVU.L vs. XNAQ.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XMVU.L
XNAQ.L
Technology
Financial Services
Healthcare
Consumer Defensive
Utilities
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Communication Services
Energy
Real Estate
Basic Materials
Technology
XMVU.L
XNAQ.L
Financial Services
XMVU.L
XNAQ.L
Healthcare
XMVU.L
XNAQ.L
Consumer Defensive
XMVU.L
XNAQ.L
Utilities
XMVU.L
XNAQ.L
Consumer Cyclical
XMVU.L
XNAQ.L
Industrials
XMVU.L
XNAQ.L
Communication Services
XMVU.L
XNAQ.L
Energy
XMVU.L
XNAQ.L
Real Estate
XMVU.L
XNAQ.L
Basic Materials
XMVU.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
XMVU.L vs. XNAQ.L — Risk / Return Rank
XMVU.L
XNAQ.L
XMVU.L vs. XNAQ.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI USA Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF 1D (XMVU.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.
| XMVU.L | XNAQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.06 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.77 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.10 | 1.45 | -0.35 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.80 | 3.65 | -2.85 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.49 | 13.39 | -10.90 |
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
| XMVU.L | XNAQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.56 | 2.62 | -2.06 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.63 | 0.87 | -0.24 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.75 | 0.85 | -0.10 |
Drawdowns
XMVU.L vs. XNAQ.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XMVU.L drawdown since its inception was -32.98%, smaller than the maximum XNAQ.L drawdown of -35.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMVU.L and XNAQ.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XMVU.L | XNAQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -32.98% | -35.12% | +2.14% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.39% | -11.05% | +5.66% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -10.00% | -23.11% | +13.11% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -17.74% | -35.12% | +17.38% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.54% | -0.77% | +0.23% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.70% | -8.65% | +4.95% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.74% | 3.01% | -1.27% |
Volatility
XMVU.L vs. XNAQ.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Xtrackers MSCI USA Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF 1D (XMVU.L) is 2.22%, while Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.L) has a volatility of 4.38%. This indicates that XMVU.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
| XMVU.L | XNAQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.22% | 4.38% | -2.16% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.35% | 11.26% | -5.91% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 7.67% | 15.37% | -7.70% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 11.57% | 20.38% | -8.81% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.12% | 20.43% | -7.31% |
XMVU.L vs. XNAQ.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both XMVU.L and XNAQ.L have an expense ratio of 0.20%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
XMVU.L vs. XNAQ.L - Dividend Comparison
XMVU.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.18%, while XNAQ.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XMVU.L Xtrackers MSCI USA Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF 1D | 1.18% | 1.24% | 1.31% | 1.33% | 1.82% | 1.27% | 1.81% |
XNAQ.L Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XMVU.L and XNAQ.L have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
Both ETFs have the same 0.20% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XMVU.L and XNAQ.L have the same expense ratio: 0.20% per year.
XMVU.L is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while XNAQ.L is Nasdaq-100. XMVU.L tracks Russell 1000 TR USD, while XNAQ.L tracks Russell 1000 Growth TR USD.
Find the right allocation for XMVU.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