CNX1 vs IWFV: which ETF won each year?

Yearly returns side by side, one winner per year — dividends included, priced as you'd actually buy them.

Every figure here is in pounds — what you'd actually pocket buying on the London Stock Exchange. Fund fact sheets usually headline returns in US dollars, which can look very different in years when the pound moves against the dollar. Here's the full story, year by year.

CNX1 tracks the Nasdaq-100 IndexIWFV tracks the MSCI World Enhanced Value Index

What did the last 10 years do to £10,000?

You invest £10,000 at the start of the window and touch nothing — dividends reinvested, the running year not counted.

CNX1 turned it into
£63,451
+20.29% per year on average · 20162025
IWFV turned it into
£27,242
+10.54% per year on average · 20162025
Difference
+£36,209
CNX1 made more of the same money

CNX1 vs IWFV, year by year

Calendar-year total returns (dividends included) side by side, and who took the crown each year. A dash means the fund did not exist yet.

Years compared
13
where both funds were trading
CNX1 won
9
years
IWFV won
4
years
YearCNX1IWFVWinner
2026 (so far)+20.13%+33.94%IWFV
2025+11.83%+30.69%IWFV
2024+28.51%+6.85%CNX1
2023+47.71%+13.02%CNX1
2022-25.53%+0.95%IWFV
2021+29.50%+21.60%CNX1
2020+43.24%-6.91%CNX1
2019+33.63%+14.69%CNX1
2018+4.62%-9.34%CNX1
2017+20.13%+12.04%CNX1
2016+28.85%+29.68%IWFV
2015+14.71%+1.33%CNX1
2014+28.19%-34.90%CNX1
2013+36.05%
2012+9.20%
2011+3.56%
2010-20.33%

CNX1 vs IWFV in plain words

CNX1 tracks the Nasdaq-100 Index while IWFV follows the MSCI World Enhanced Value Index, so they own different slices of the market and their years can look very different. CNX1 charges 0.30% a year in running costs and IWFV charges 0.25% — IWFV is the cheaper fund to hold.

Both are accumulating funds: dividends are reinvested inside the fund and show up as a higher share price, never as a payout. Across the 13 calendar years both funds were trading, CNX1 finished the year ahead 9 times and IWFV 4 times. £10,000 invested at the start of 2016 was worth £63,451 in CNX1 versus £27,242 in IWFV by the end of 2025, dividends reinvested.

CNDX is the London (USD) listing and SXRV the Xetra (EUR) line of the same fund, ISIN IE00B53SZB19 — CNX1 is its GBP line on the London Stock Exchange.

IWVL is the London (USD) listing and IS3S the Xetra (EUR) line of the same fund, ISIN IE00BP3QZB59 — IWFV is its GBP line on the London Stock Exchange.

Fund facts: CNX1 vs IWFV

FactCNX1IWFV
FundiShares Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF (Acc)iShares Edge MSCI World Value Factor UCITS ETF
TracksNasdaq-100 IndexMSCI World Enhanced Value Index
Yearly cost (TER)0.30%0.25%
DividendsAccumulating — dividends reinvestedAccumulating — dividends reinvested
Launched26 Jan 20103 Oct 2014
ISINIE00B53SZB19IE00BP3QZB59

Frequently asked

Is CNX1 or IWFV better?

Across the 13 calendar years both funds were trading, CNX1 finished the year ahead 9 times and IWFV 4 times. £10,000 invested at the start of 2016 was worth £63,451 in CNX1 versus £27,242 in IWFV by the end of 2025, dividends reinvested. Past returns don't promise future ones — but this is what actually happened.

What is the difference between CNX1 and IWFV?

CNX1 tracks the Nasdaq-100 Index while IWFV follows the MSCI World Enhanced Value Index, so they own different slices of the market and their years can look very different. CNX1 charges 0.30% a year in running costs and IWFV charges 0.25% — IWFV is the cheaper fund to hold. Both are accumulating funds: dividends are reinvested inside the fund and show up as a higher share price, never as a payout.

What would £10,000 in CNX1 have become?

£10,000 invested in CNX1 at the start of 2016 grew to £63,451 by the end of 2025, with dividends reinvested — an average of 20.3% per year.

Related comparisons

More head-to-heads featuring CNX1 or IWFV.