XWEM.L vs. XNAQ.L

Last updated Jun 17, 2026

XWEM.L (Xtrackers MSCI World Momentum ESG UCITS ETF 1C) and XNAQ.L (Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C) are both exchange-traded funds - XWEM.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI World Momentum Low Carbon SRI Screened Select, while XNAQ.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, XWEM.L returned 36.83% vs 38.58% for XNAQ.L. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XWEM.L charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XNAQ.L.

Performance

XWEM.L vs. XNAQ.L - Performance Comparison

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

Different Trading Currencies

XWEM.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, XWEM.L achieves a 22.01% return, which is significantly higher than XNAQ.L's 19.13% return.

XWEM.L

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 5.82%
• YTD: 22.01%
• 6M: 24.55%
• 1Y: 36.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

XNAQ.L

• 1D: -0.71%
• 1M: 3.51%
• YTD: 19.13%
• 6M: 21.37%
• 1Y: 38.58%
• 3Y*: 26.46%
• 5Y*: 16.92%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
XWEM.L Xtrackers MSCI World Momentum ESG UCITS ETF 1C	22.01%	21.57%	28.83%	9.50%
XNAQ.L Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C	19.13%	20.15%	26.49%	11.49%

Correlation

The correlation between XWEM.L and XNAQ.L is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 5, 2023	0.81

The correlation between XWEM.L and XNAQ.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

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

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

XWEM.L

XWEM.L Risk / Return Rank: 71
XWEM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
XWEM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
XWEM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 68
XWEM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
XWEM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 76

XNAQ.L

XNAQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 76
XNAQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
XNAQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
XNAQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 81
XNAQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
XNAQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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.

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

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

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.

	XWEM.L	XNAQ.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.07	2.38	-0.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.11	3.26	-0.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.41	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.11	3.48	-0.36
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.39	12.44	+0.96

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

The current XWEM.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.07, which is comparable to the XNAQ.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XWEM.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.

Drawdowns

XWEM.L vs. XNAQ.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XWEM.L drawdown since its inception was -19.12%, smaller than the maximum XNAQ.L drawdown of -41.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XWEM.L and XNAQ.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XWEM.L	XNAQ.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.12%	-41.69%	+22.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.77%	-11.05%	-0.72%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.10%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.15%	-1.15%	+1.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.22%	-15.58%	+13.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.74%	3.09%	-0.35%

Volatility

XWEM.L vs. XNAQ.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers MSCI World Momentum ESG UCITS ETF 1C (XWEM.L) and Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.L) have volatilities of 6.17% and 6.34%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	XWEM.L	XNAQ.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.17%	6.34%	-0.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.16%	12.35%	+2.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.75%	16.16%	+1.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.39%	24.73%	-7.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.39%	26.89%	-9.50%

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

XWEM.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

XWEM.L vs. XNAQ.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

XWEM.L and XNAQ.L have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

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

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

XWEM.L is categorized as Global Equities, while XNAQ.L is Nasdaq-100. XWEM.L tracks MSCI World Momentum Low Carbon SRI Screened Select, while XNAQ.L tracks Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XWEM.L and 0.20% for XNAQ.L.