BNKU.L vs. CSH2.L
BNKU.L (Lyxor S&P 500 Banks UCITS ETF - Acc) and CSH2.L (Amundi Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF GBP Hedged Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - BNKU.L is a Financials Equities fund tracking the S&P 500 Capped 35/20 Banks and Diversified Financials Select Index, while CSH2.L is a Money Market fund tracking the SONIA Compounded (GBP Hedged). Both are passively managed. Their 0.08 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. BNKU.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for CSH2.L.
Performance
BNKU.L vs. CSH2.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
BNKU.L is traded in USD, while CSH2.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the CSH2.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
BNKU.L
- 1D
- —
- 1M
- —
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
CSH2.L
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 1.14%
- 6M
- -2.00%
- YTD
- 1.10%
- 1Y
- 3.85%
- 3Y*
- 6.17%
- 5Y*
- 2.78%
- 10Y*
- 2.18%
- ALL TIME*
- 0.71%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $22.54M | $22.77M | $25.99M |
BNKU.L vs. CSH2.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BNKU.L Lyxor S&P 500 Banks UCITS ETF - Acc | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 28.68% | -7.96% | 36.49% | -19.86% |
CSH2.L Amundi Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF GBP Hedged Acc | 1.10% | 12.57% | 3.85% | 10.24% | -9.32% | -0.78% | 3.37% | 4.86% | -4.59% |
Correlation
The correlation between BNKU.L and CSH2.L is 0.08, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 11, 2018 | 0.08 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
BNKU.L vs. CSH2.L — Risk / Return Rank
BNKU.L
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
CSH2.L
BNKU.L vs. CSH2.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor S&P 500 Banks UCITS ETF - Acc (BNKU.L) and Amundi Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF GBP Hedged Acc (CSH2.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.
| BNKU.L | CSH2.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.10 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 0.93 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 2.03 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BNKU.L vs. CSH2.L - Drawdown Comparison
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BNKU.L | CSH2.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | — | -29.83% | — |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -4.11% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -7.81% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -22.63% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -24.10% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | — | -2.00% | — |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | — | -12.56% | — |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.89% | — |
Volatility
BNKU.L vs. CSH2.L - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BNKU.L | CSH2.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 1.72% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 4.80% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | — | 6.59% | — |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | — | 8.54% | — |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | — | 8.80% | — |
BNKU.L vs. CSH2.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
BNKU.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than CSH2.L's 0.10% 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
BNKU.L vs. CSH2.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither BNKU.L nor CSH2.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
BNKU.L and CSH2.L have a correlation of 0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CSH2.L is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CSH2.L is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for BNKU.L.
BNKU.L is categorized as Financials Equities, while CSH2.L is Money Market. BNKU.L tracks S&P 500 Capped 35/20 Banks and Diversified Financials Select Index, while CSH2.L tracks SONIA Compounded (GBP Hedged). Their fees differ too: 0.20% for BNKU.L and 0.10% for CSH2.L.
Find the right allocation for BNKU.L and CSH2.L
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer