XNAQ.L vs. XRSG.L
XNAQ.L (Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C) and XRSG.L (Xtrackers Russell 2000 UCITS ETF 1C) are both exchange-traded funds - XNAQ.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth TR USD, while XRSG.L is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XNAQ.L returned 18.96%/yr vs 7.21%/yr for XRSG.L. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XNAQ.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for XRSG.L.
Performance
XNAQ.L vs. XRSG.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
XNAQ.L is traded in GBP, while XRSG.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the XRSG.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 19.89% return, which is significantly higher than XRSG.L's 17.87% return.
XNAQ.L
- 1D
- -0.63%
- 1M
- 8.16%
- YTD
- 19.89%
- 6M
- 17.66%
- 1Y
- 41.02%
- 3Y*
- 24.81%
- 5Y*
- 18.96%
- 10Y*
- —
XRSG.L
- 1D
- 1.10%
- 1M
- 4.49%
- YTD
- 17.87%
- 6M
- 15.72%
- 1Y
- 42.23%
- 3Y*
- 15.45%
- 5Y*
- 7.21%
- 10Y*
- 11.37%
XNAQ.L vs. XRSG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XNAQ.L Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C | 19.89% | 11.71% | 28.62% | 47.83% | -25.44% | 26.22% |
XRSG.L Xtrackers Russell 2000 UCITS ETF 1C | 17.87% | 4.65% | 11.80% | 12.16% | -11.47% | 9.52% |
Correlation
The correlation between XNAQ.L and XRSG.L is 0.62, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.62 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.57 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.63 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 29, 2021 | 0.63 |
The correlation between XNAQ.L and XRSG.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.63 - a consistent structural relationship.
XNAQ.L vs. XRSG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XNAQ.L
XRSG.L
Technology
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Consumer Defensive
Healthcare
Industrials
Utilities
Basic Materials
Energy
Financial Services
Real Estate
Technology
XNAQ.L
XRSG.L
Communication Services
XNAQ.L
XRSG.L
Consumer Cyclical
XNAQ.L
XRSG.L
Consumer Defensive
XNAQ.L
XRSG.L
Healthcare
XNAQ.L
XRSG.L
Industrials
XNAQ.L
XRSG.L
Utilities
XNAQ.L
XRSG.L
Basic Materials
XNAQ.L
XRSG.L
Energy
XNAQ.L
XRSG.L
Financial Services
XNAQ.L
XRSG.L
Real Estate
XNAQ.L
XRSG.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
XNAQ.L vs. XRSG.L — Risk / Return Rank
XNAQ.L
XRSG.L
XNAQ.L vs. XRSG.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 Xtrackers Russell 2000 UCITS ETF 1C (XRSG.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.
| XNAQ.L | XRSG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.34 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.35 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.50 | 1.41 | +0.09 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.79 | 4.88 | -1.09 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.13 | 14.33 | -3.20 |
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 | XRSG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.83 | 2.49 | +0.34 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.00 | 0.36 | +0.64 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.55 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.93 | 0.49 | +0.43 |
Drawdowns
XNAQ.L vs. XRSG.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XNAQ.L drawdown since its inception was -27.52%, smaller than the maximum XRSG.L drawdown of -35.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XNAQ.L and XRSG.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XNAQ.L | XRSG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -27.52% | -35.31% | +7.79% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.99% | -8.61% | -2.38% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.56% | -30.09% | +5.53% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -27.52% | -30.09% | +2.57% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -35.31% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.63% | -0.03% | -0.60% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.01% | -8.72% | +1.71% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.75% | 2.94% | +0.81% |
Volatility
XNAQ.L vs. XRSG.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.L) is 4.18%, while Xtrackers Russell 2000 UCITS ETF 1C (XRSG.L) has a volatility of 5.20%. This indicates that XNAQ.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XRSG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XNAQ.L | XRSG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.18% | 5.20% | -1.02% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.38% | 11.83% | -1.45% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.73% | 16.89% | -2.16% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.04% | 20.04% | -1.00% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.13% | 20.88% | -1.75% |
XNAQ.L vs. XRSG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
XNAQ.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than XRSG.L's 0.30% expense ratio.
Dividends
XNAQ.L vs. XRSG.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither XNAQ.L nor XRSG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
XNAQ.L and XRSG.L have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
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 0.30% for XRSG.L.
XNAQ.L is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while XRSG.L is Small Cap Blend Equities. XNAQ.L tracks Russell 1000 Growth TR USD, while XRSG.L tracks Russell 2000 TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for XNAQ.L and 0.30% for XRSG.L.
Find the right allocation for XNAQ.L and XRSG.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