CC1U.L vs. FLQA.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

CC1U.L (Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD) and FLQA.L (Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds - CC1U.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD while FLQA.L tracks the Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CC1U.L returned 0.09%/yr vs 12.63%/yr for FLQA.L. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CC1U.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for FLQA.L.

Performance

CC1U.L vs. FLQA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD (CC1U.L) and Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF (FLQA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CC1U.L achieves a -7.55% return, which is significantly lower than FLQA.L's 32.52% return.

CC1U.L

• 1D: 0.79%
• 1M: -6.87%
• 6M: -13.68%
• YTD: -7.55%
• 1Y: 10.82%
• 3Y*: 1.83%
• 5Y*: 0.09%
• 10Y*: —

FLQA.L

• 1D: -1.74%
• 1M: -9.13%
• 6M: 26.58%
• YTD: 32.52%
• 1Y: 52.26%
• 3Y*: 25.15%
• 5Y*: 12.63%
• 10Y*: —

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

CC1U.L vs. FLQA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CC1U.L Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD	-7.55%	39.49%	1.53%	-11.33%	-9.32%	-3.10%	-1.85%	12.90%	-10.27%
FLQA.L Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF	32.52%	29.84%	7.76%	12.02%	-12.93%	4.57%	6.71%	9.75%	-5.84%

Correlation

The correlation between CC1U.L and FLQA.L is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.50
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2018	0.69

The correlation between CC1U.L and FLQA.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.50 (3 years) to 0.69 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

CC1U.L vs. FLQA.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CC1U.L

CC1U.L Risk / Return Rank: 17
CC1U.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
CC1U.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
CC1U.L Omega Ratio Rank: 17
CC1U.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
CC1U.L Martin Ratio Rank: 16

FLQA.L

FLQA.L Risk / Return Rank: 80
FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
FLQA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
FLQA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 79
FLQA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
FLQA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

CC1U.L vs. FLQA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD (CC1U.L) and Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF (FLQA.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.

	CC1U.L	FLQA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.45	2.06	-1.61
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.78	2.66	-1.88
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.37	-0.27
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.58	3.75	-3.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.22	11.86	-10.64

CC1U.L vs. FLQA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CC1U.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.45, which is lower than the FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CC1U.L and FLQA.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

CC1U.L vs. FLQA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CC1U.L drawdown since its inception was -45.32%, which is greater than FLQA.L's maximum drawdown of -29.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CC1U.L and FLQA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CC1U.L	FLQA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.32%	-29.21%	-16.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.53%	-13.77%	-4.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-39.67%	-22.19%	-17.48%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-42.25%	-25.38%	-16.87%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.97%	-12.64%	-4.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.00%	-7.22%	-8.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.81%	4.36%	+4.45%

Volatility

CC1U.L vs. FLQA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD (CC1U.L) is 7.42%, while Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF (FLQA.L) has a volatility of 11.18%. This indicates that CC1U.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLQA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CC1U.L	FLQA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.42%	11.18%	-3.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.80%	22.99%	-6.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.00%	25.11%	-1.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.34%	17.74%	+9.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.46%	18.52%	+6.94%

CC1U.L vs. FLQA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CC1U.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than FLQA.L's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

CC1U.L vs. FLQA.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CC1U.L nor FLQA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CC1U.L and FLQA.L in my portfolio?

CC1U.L and FLQA.L have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CC1U.L or FLQA.L?

On fees, FLQA.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CC1U.L or FLQA.L?

FLQA.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for CC1U.L.

What is the main difference between CC1U.L and FLQA.L?

CC1U.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while FLQA.L tracks Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and Franklin. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for CC1U.L and 0.14% for FLQA.L.