PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CEBG.L vs. CNAA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CEBG.L vs. CNAA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A (CEBG.L) and Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CEBG.L is traded in GBP, while CNAA.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the CNAA.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEBG.L achieves a -7.49% return, which is significantly lower than CNAA.L's 6.28% return.


CEBG.L

1D
0.00%
1M
-2.96%
6M
-12.32%
YTD
-7.49%
1Y
-0.72%
3Y*
-0.10%
5Y*
10Y*

CNAA.L

1D
-1.18%
1M
-3.60%
6M
2.99%
YTD
6.28%
1Y
26.76%
3Y*
8.83%
5Y*
-0.50%
10Y*
4.22%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CEBG.L vs. CNAA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
CEBG.L
VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A
-7.49%15.45%1.26%-14.25%-19.48%-21.21%
CNAA.L
Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR
6.28%17.14%12.85%-18.48%-17.18%5.62%

Correlation

The correlation between CEBG.L and CNAA.L is 0.76, 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

0.76

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.82

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 24, 2021

0.82

The correlation between CEBG.L and CNAA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

CEBG.L vs. CNAA.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CEBG.L
CEBG.L Risk / Return Rank: 99
Overall Rank
CEBG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CEBG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
Sortino Ratio Rank
CEBG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 88
Omega Ratio Rank
CEBG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
Calmar Ratio Rank
CEBG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 99
Martin Ratio Rank

CNAA.L
CNAA.L Risk / Return Rank: 6060
Overall Rank
CNAA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNAA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNAA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5151
Omega Ratio Rank
CNAA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8383
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNAA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

CEBG.L vs. CNAA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A (CEBG.L) and Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.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.


CEBG.LCNAA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.46

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.94

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.01

1.25

-0.25

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.05

3.15

-3.20

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.10

8.91

-9.01

CEBG.L vs. CNAA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEBG.L Sharpe Ratio is -0.04, which is lower than the CNAA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEBG.L and CNAA.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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

CEBG.L vs. CNAA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEBG.L drawdown since its inception was -57.08%, which is greater than CNAA.L's maximum drawdown of -50.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEBG.L and CNAA.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CEBG.LCNAA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-57.08%

-50.93%

-6.15%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-15.95%

-8.46%

-7.49%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-29.32%

-26.66%

-2.66%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-42.50%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.04%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-41.63%

-13.63%

-28.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-39.57%

-25.69%

-13.88%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.44%

3.00%

+4.44%

Volatility

CEBG.L vs. CNAA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A (CEBG.L) is 5.00%, while Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L) has a volatility of 8.76%. This indicates that CEBG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNAA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CEBG.LCNAA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.00%

8.76%

-3.76%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.11%

14.56%

-3.45%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.24%

18.88%

-2.64%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

27.02%

21.82%

+5.20%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

27.02%

22.33%

+4.69%

CEBG.L vs. CNAA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEBG.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than CNAA.L's 0.35% expense ratio.


Dividends

CEBG.L vs. CNAA.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CEBG.L nor CNAA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


CEBG.L and CNAA.L have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CNAA.L is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CNAA.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CEBG.L.

CEBG.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while CNAA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for CEBG.L and 0.35% for CNAA.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CEBG.L and CNAA.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