XSMW.L vs. XNAQ.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XSMW.L (Xtrackers MSCI World Materials UCITS ETF 1C) and XNAQ.L (Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C) are both exchange-traded funds - XSMW.L is a Materials fund tracking the MSCI World Materials Index, while XNAQ.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, XSMW.L returned 33.49% vs 41.84% for XNAQ.L. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XSMW.L charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XNAQ.L.

Performance

XSMW.L vs. XNAQ.L - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XSMW.L achieves a 15.77% return, which is significantly lower than XNAQ.L's 19.89% return.

XSMW.L

• 1D: -0.50%
• 1M: 4.62%
• YTD: 15.77%
• 6M: 19.28%
• 1Y: 33.49%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

XNAQ.L

• 1D: -0.63%
• 1M: 9.63%
• YTD: 19.89%
• 6M: 18.46%
• 1Y: 41.84%
• 3Y*: 24.81%
• 5Y*: 18.96%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
XSMW.L Xtrackers MSCI World Materials UCITS ETF 1C	15.77%	17.51%	-4.39%	8.73%
XNAQ.L Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C	19.89%	11.71%	28.62%	11.36%

Correlation

The correlation between XSMW.L and XNAQ.L is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 15, 2023	0.40

Return for Risk

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

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

XSMW.L

XSMW.L Risk / Return Rank: 55
XSMW.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
XSMW.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
XSMW.L Omega Ratio Rank: 58
XSMW.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
XSMW.L Martin Ratio Rank: 53

XNAQ.L

XNAQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 78
XNAQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
XNAQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
XNAQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 83
XNAQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
XNAQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI World Materials UCITS ETF 1C (XSMW.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.

	XSMW.L	XNAQ.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.98	2.83	-0.85
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.73	3.70	-0.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.50	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.28	3.79	-1.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.86	11.13	-2.27
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current XSMW.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.98, which is lower than the XNAQ.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XSMW.L and XNAQ.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	XSMW.L	XNAQ.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.98	2.83	-0.85
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.00	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.88	0.93	-0.05

Drawdowns

XSMW.L vs. XNAQ.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XSMW.L drawdown since its inception was -18.45%, smaller than the maximum XNAQ.L drawdown of -27.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XSMW.L and XNAQ.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XSMW.L	XNAQ.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.45%	-27.52%	+9.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.60%	-10.99%	-3.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-24.56%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.52%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.47%	-0.63%	-2.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.32%	-7.01%	+2.69%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.77%	3.75%	+0.02%

Volatility

XSMW.L vs. XNAQ.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers MSCI World Materials UCITS ETF 1C (XSMW.L) has a higher volatility of 6.86% compared to Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.L) at 4.18%. This indicates that XSMW.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XNAQ.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XSMW.L	XNAQ.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.86%	4.18%	+2.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.56%	10.38%	+4.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.87%	14.73%	+2.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.90%	19.04%	-4.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.90%	19.13%	-4.23%

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

XSMW.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than XNAQ.L's 0.20% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

XSMW.L vs. XNAQ.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

XSMW.L and XNAQ.L have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

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

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

XSMW.L is categorized as Materials, while XNAQ.L is Nasdaq-100. XSMW.L tracks MSCI World Materials Index, while XNAQ.L tracks Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XSMW.L and 0.20% for XNAQ.L.