Nasdaq-100 ETF (PUST) vs S&P 500 ETF (PSP5): which performed better across different start dates?
PUST · Amundi’s Nasdaq-100 fundPSP5 · Amundi’s S&P 500 fund
Evidence dossier
1Comparing different starting dates
Supported: PUST finished ahead on the shared observed net asset value path; the rolling-window evidence did persist across both reviewed horizons.
Different starting dates
We repeat the comparison over three- and five-year periods, moving the start forward one month each time.
PUST finished ahead in 73 of 84 completed periods.
PUST finished ahead in 60 of 60 completed periods.
One dot is one completed period. Dots are grouped by result, not date. The periods overlap; these are historical counts, not future odds.
View the exact counts
| Period length | PUST ahead | PSP5 ahead | Equal | Total | PUST ahead (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 36 months | 73 | 11 | 0 | 84 | 86.9% |
| 60 months | 60 | 0 | 0 | 60 | 100% |
How fund values changed
Both start at 100 on 5 May 2016. This compares their published net asset values, not trading prices.
Falls and recoveries
The largest observed fall from a high point, and when the fund first regained that level.
PSP5
- Largest fall-33.6%
- High point19 Feb 2020
- Low point23 Mar 2020
- Recovery7 Jan 2021
PUST
- Largest fall-31.1%
- High point19 Nov 2021
- Low point28 Dec 2022
- Recovery10 Nov 2023
History through difficult periods
How much published fund history overlaps each stress period.
| Stress period and dates | Published data points |
|---|---|
| Global Financial Crisis recession1 Dec 2007 — 30 Jun 2009 |
|
| COVID-19 recession1 Feb 2020 — 30 Apr 2020 |
|
| European Central Bank 2022-2023 tightening cycle27 Jul 2022 — 20 Sept 2023 |
|
2How complete is the history?
We check the published history against the Euronext Paris trading calendar. Not every expected trading day has a shared fund value.
- Expected trading days
- 2,557
- Shared data points
- 2,497
- Trading days without shared data
- 69
- Data points outside the trading calendar
- 9
- Last month left out
- No
Examples of trading days with missing data
30 May 2016 · 4 Jul 2016 · 5 Sept 2016 · 24 Nov 2016 · 2 Jan 2017
Examples of dates outside the trading calendar
17 Apr 2017 · 1 May 2017 · 26 Dec 2017 · 2 Apr 2018 · 26 Dec 2018
3What this does and does not prove
Supported by this evidence
- The exact shared published net asset value history supports the displayed endpoint and rolling-window counts.
- The normalized paths and observed drawdown events use no filled or inferred observation dates.
Not proven by this report
- The observed paths do not represent exchange execution prices or investor terminal wealth.
- The tested historical relationship does not extend beyond the reviewed evidence window.
A careful way to describe the result
Across the tested shared published net asset value history, PUST finished ahead at the endpoint, while its lead did persist across the reviewed three- and five-year windows. The result is bounded to observed net asset value data and does not model trading execution or establish future superiority.
4Where the data comes from
Evidence timing
Amundi S&P 500 fund (PSP5)
- Provider
- Amundi
- History used
- Published fund history
- Source coverage
- 2016-05-05 to 2026-04-30
- Reviewed
Amundi Nasdaq-100 fund (PUST)
- Provider
- Amundi
- History used
- Published fund history
- Source coverage
- 2016-04-29 to 2026-04-30
- Reviewed
- Report produced
5How we checked the claim
- Shared starting value
- 100 at the first exact common observation
- Comparison periods
- 36 months · 60 months
- Shared data points
- 2,497
What this method can tell us
Historical stress behavior is bounded to observed unitized paths and registered windows; it does not establish an investment action or outcome outside those observations.
Results during each stress period
The return difference compares PUST with PSP5 in percentage points. “No overlap” means this report has no shared fund history for that period.
On a small screen, scroll the table sideways for all results.
| Fund | Dates with data | Data points | Period return | Largest fall | Return difference | Recovery within period |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global Financial Crisis recession | ||||||
| PSP5 | No overlap | 0 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not applicable — no overlap |
| PUST | No overlap | 0 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not applicable — no overlap |
| COVID-19 recession | ||||||
| PSP5 | 3 Feb 2020 — 30 Apr 2020 | 62 | -9.1% | -33.6% | Not supplied | Not recovered by period end |
| PUST | 3 Feb 2020 — 30 Apr 2020 | 62 | -0.3% | -30% | 8.8 percentage points | Not recovered by period end |
| European Central Bank 2022-2023 tightening cycle | ||||||
| PSP5 | 27 Jul 2022 — 20 Sept 2023 | 288 | 5% | -15.3% | Not supplied | 1 Sept 2023 |
| PUST | 27 Jul 2022 — 20 Sept 2023 | 288 | 12.8% | -24.9% | 7.8 percentage points | 26 May 2023 |
How long the largest fall lasted
| Fund | High point to low point | Low point to recovery | Calendar days below the previous high | Data points below the previous high |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PSP5 | 33 days | 290 days | 323 | 222 |
| PUST | 404 days | 317 days | 721 | 492 |
6What to keep in mind
What the published dates can miss
- The observed net asset value drawdown uses only shared published observations and may miss unsampled intraperiod moves.
- Coverage counts use the Euronext Paris trading calendar; bounded examples show dates with missing data or dates outside that calendar without exposing raw net asset value rows.
- Capability
- Automated report
- What may affect the result
- Which dates have published fund values
LensVest is an evidence check, not investment advice, transaction instruction, or suitability assessment. A failed claim does not prove the opposite recommendation. Past performance is not future performance, and ETF investing involves risk.