XWFS.L vs. XNAQ.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XWFS.L (Xtrackers MSCI World Financials UCITS ETF 1C) and XNAQ.L (Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C) are both exchange-traded funds - XWFS.L is a Financials Equities fund tracking the MSCI World/Financials NR USD, while XNAQ.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, XWFS.L returned 20.16%/yr vs 25.51%/yr for XNAQ.L. At a 0.50 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XWFS.L charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XNAQ.L.

Performance

XWFS.L vs. XNAQ.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI World Financials UCITS ETF 1C (XWFS.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, XWFS.L achieves a -1.42% return, which is significantly lower than XNAQ.L's 20.65% return.

XWFS.L

• 1D: -0.98%
• 1M: -0.19%
• YTD: -1.42%
• 6M: 2.61%
• 1Y: 13.19%
• 3Y*: 20.16%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

XNAQ.L

• 1D: 0.17%
• 1M: 11.88%
• YTD: 20.65%
• 6M: 19.23%
• 1Y: 42.83%
• 3Y*: 25.51%
• 5Y*: 19.11%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
XWFS.L Xtrackers MSCI World Financials UCITS ETF 1C	-1.42%	20.20%	29.08%	10.02%	-0.66%
XNAQ.L Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C	20.65%	11.71%	28.62%	47.83%	-18.16%

Correlation

The correlation between XWFS.L and XNAQ.L is 0.42, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.42
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 25, 2022	0.50

Return for Risk

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

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

XWFS.L

XWFS.L Risk / Return Rank: 29
XWFS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
XWFS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
XWFS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 27
XWFS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
XWFS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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: 84
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.

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

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

	XWFS.L	XNAQ.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.06	2.90	-1.84
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.55	3.78	-2.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.51	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.36	3.88	-2.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.37	11.39	-7.02
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current XWFS.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.06, which is lower than the XNAQ.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XWFS.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

	XWFS.L	XNAQ.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.06	2.90	-1.84
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.00	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.82	0.94	-0.12

Drawdowns

XWFS.L vs. XNAQ.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XWFS.L drawdown since its inception was -16.47%, smaller than the maximum XNAQ.L drawdown of -27.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XWFS.L and XNAQ.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XWFS.L	XNAQ.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.47%	-27.52%	+11.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.64%	-10.99%	+1.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.47%	-24.56%	+8.09%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.52%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.91%	0.00%	-2.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.11%	-7.01%	+2.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.01%	3.75%	-0.74%

Volatility

XWFS.L vs. XNAQ.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers MSCI World Financials UCITS ETF 1C (XWFS.L) is 2.90%, while Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.L) has a volatility of 4.13%. This indicates that XWFS.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XNAQ.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XWFS.L	XNAQ.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.90%	4.13%	-1.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.62%	10.36%	-0.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.43%	14.79%	-2.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.02%	19.04%	-3.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.02%	19.14%	-3.12%

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

XWFS.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

XWFS.L vs. XNAQ.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

XWFS.L and XNAQ.L have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

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

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

XWFS.L is categorized as Financials Equities, while XNAQ.L is Nasdaq-100. XWFS.L tracks MSCI World/Financials NR USD, while XNAQ.L tracks Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XWFS.L and 0.20% for XNAQ.L.