XNAQ.L vs. CNDX.AS
XNAQ.L (Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C) and CNDX.AS (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) are both Nasdaq-100 funds - XNAQ.L tracks the Russell 1000 Growth TR USD while CNDX.AS tracks the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XNAQ.L returned 18.22%/yr vs 18.83%/yr for CNDX.AS. With a 0.95 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. XNAQ.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.36%/yr for CNDX.AS.
Performance
XNAQ.L vs. CNDX.AS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
XNAQ.L is traded in GBP, while CNDX.AS is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the CNDX.AS values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XNAQ.L achieves a 17.32% return, which is significantly lower than CNDX.AS's 20.01% return.
XNAQ.L
- 1D
- -0.10%
- 1M
- 3.80%
- YTD
- 17.32%
- 6M
- 15.22%
- 1Y
- 38.12%
- 3Y*
- 24.74%
- 5Y*
- 18.22%
- 10Y*
- —
CNDX.AS
- 1D
- -0.69%
- 1M
- 5.91%
- YTD
- 20.01%
- 6M
- 17.64%
- 1Y
- 40.93%
- 3Y*
- 24.70%
- 5Y*
- 18.83%
- 10Y*
- 22.42%
XNAQ.L vs. CNDX.AS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XNAQ.L Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C | 17.32% | 11.72% | 28.64% | 47.82% | -25.44% | -8.88% |
CNDX.AS iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF | 20.01% | 11.84% | 29.14% | 47.41% | -26.28% | 25.43% |
Correlation
The correlation between XNAQ.L and CNDX.AS is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.95 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 22, 2021 | 0.95 |
The correlation between XNAQ.L and CNDX.AS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
XNAQ.L vs. CNDX.AS — Risk / Return Rank
XNAQ.L
CNDX.AS
XNAQ.L vs. CNDX.AS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.AS). 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.
| XNAQ.L | CNDX.AS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.18 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.25 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.45 | 1.48 | -0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.45 | 3.71 | -0.26 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.12 | 10.83 | -0.71 |
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
| XNAQ.L | CNDX.AS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.55 | 2.74 | -0.18 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.77 | 0.96 | -0.19 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 1.13 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.40 | 1.06 | -0.66 |
Drawdowns
XNAQ.L vs. CNDX.AS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XNAQ.L drawdown since its inception was -34.26%, which is greater than CNDX.AS's maximum drawdown of -27.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XNAQ.L and CNDX.AS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XNAQ.L | CNDX.AS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -34.26% | -27.59% | -6.67% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.99% | -11.00% | +0.01% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.55% | -24.96% | +0.41% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -27.52% | -27.59% | +0.07% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -27.59% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.75% | -0.69% | -2.06% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -13.70% | -4.64% | -9.06% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.76% | 3.80% | -0.04% |
Volatility
XNAQ.L vs. CNDX.AS - Volatility Comparison
Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.L) and iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.AS) have volatilities of 4.71% and 4.62%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XNAQ.L | CNDX.AS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.71% | 4.62% | +0.09% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.57% | 10.47% | +0.10% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.91% | 14.94% | -0.03% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 23.59% | 19.29% | +4.30% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.98% | 19.58% | +6.40% |
XNAQ.L vs. CNDX.AS - Expense Ratio Comparison
XNAQ.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than CNDX.AS's 0.36% expense ratio.
Dividends
XNAQ.L vs. CNDX.AS - Dividend Comparison
Neither XNAQ.L nor CNDX.AS has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.96, XNAQ.L and CNDX.AS 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, 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 0.36% for CNDX.AS.
XNAQ.L tracks Russell 1000 Growth TR USD, while CNDX.AS tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for XNAQ.L and 0.36% for CNDX.AS.
Find the right allocation for XNAQ.L and CNDX.AS
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