XNAQ.L vs. NESP.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

XNAQ.L (Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C) and NESP.L (Invesco Nasdaq-100 ESG UCITS ETF Acc) are both Nasdaq-100 funds tracking the Russell 1000 Growth TR USD, from Xtrackers and Invesco respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, XNAQ.L returned 22.74%/yr vs 24.39%/yr for NESP.L. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. XNAQ.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for NESP.L.

Performance

XNAQ.L vs. NESP.L - Performance Comparison

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

Different Trading Currencies

XNAQ.L is traded in GBP, while NESP.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the NESP.L 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 15.61% return, which is significantly lower than NESP.L's 18.42% return.

XNAQ.L

• 1D: -1.38%
• 1M: -3.95%
• 6M: 15.61%
• YTD: 15.61%
• 1Y: 27.49%
• 3Y*: 22.74%
• 5Y*: 15.89%
• 10Y*: —

NESP.L

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -2.03%
• 6M: 18.65%
• YTD: 18.42%
• 1Y: 31.08%
• 3Y*: 24.39%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
XNAQ.L Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C	15.61%	11.72%	28.64%	47.82%	-25.44%	9.24%
NESP.L Invesco Nasdaq-100 ESG UCITS ETF Acc	18.42%	12.78%	28.66%	48.13%	-24.48%	-20.50%

Correlation

The correlation between XNAQ.L and NESP.L is 0.98 - 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	0.98
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.98
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 25, 2021	0.98

The correlation between XNAQ.L and NESP.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.97 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

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

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

XNAQ.L

XNAQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 59
XNAQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
XNAQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
XNAQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 61
XNAQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
XNAQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 51

NESP.L

NESP.L Risk / Return Rank: 63
NESP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
NESP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
NESP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
NESP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
NESP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.L) and Invesco Nasdaq-100 ESG UCITS ETF Acc (NESP.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	XNAQ.L	NESP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.67	1.79	-0.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.28	2.42	-0.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.32	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.49	2.61	-0.12
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.00	7.15	-0.15

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

The current XNAQ.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is comparable to the NESP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XNAQ.L and NESP.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.

Drawdowns

XNAQ.L vs. NESP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XNAQ.L drawdown since its inception was -34.26%, smaller than the maximum NESP.L drawdown of -40.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XNAQ.L and NESP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XNAQ.L	NESP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.26%	-40.98%	+6.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.99%	-11.96%	+0.97%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.55%	-24.75%	+0.20%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.52%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.00%	-3.11%	-1.89%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.49%	-15.66%	+2.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.92%	4.36%	-0.44%

Volatility

XNAQ.L vs. NESP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.L) is 6.17%, while Invesco Nasdaq-100 ESG UCITS ETF Acc (NESP.L) has a volatility of 6.70%. This indicates that XNAQ.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NESP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XNAQ.L	NESP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.17%	6.70%	-0.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.50%	13.39%	-0.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.46%	17.50%	-1.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.78%	23.55%	+0.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.92%	23.55%	+2.37%

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

XNAQ.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than NESP.L's 0.25% 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

XNAQ.L vs. NESP.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XNAQ.L and NESP.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.98, XNAQ.L and NESP.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.

Which ETF is better, XNAQ.L or NESP.L?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, XNAQ.L or NESP.L?

XNAQ.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for NESP.L.

What is the main difference between XNAQ.L and NESP.L?

Both ETFs track Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for XNAQ.L and 0.25% for NESP.L.