CEBG.L vs. LCCN.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CEBG.L (VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A) and LCCN.L (Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China NR USD, from VanEck and Amundi respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CEBG.L returned -0.04%/yr vs 8.23%/yr for LCCN.L. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CEBG.L charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for LCCN.L.

Performance

CEBG.L vs. LCCN.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 MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CEBG.L is traded in GBP, while LCCN.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the LCCN.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 -3.84% return, which is significantly higher than LCCN.L's -6.66% return.

CEBG.L

• 1D: -0.71%
• 1M: -2.19%
• YTD: -3.84%
• 6M: -5.52%
• 1Y: 9.77%
• 3Y*: -0.04%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LCCN.L

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: -1.74%
• YTD: -6.66%
• 6M: -9.04%
• 1Y: 6.01%
• 3Y*: 8.23%
• 5Y*: -3.86%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CEBG.L VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A	-3.84%	15.45%	1.26%	-14.25%	-19.48%	6.97%
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc	-6.66%	22.63%	21.46%	-16.03%	-12.96%	-5.67%

Correlation

The correlation between CEBG.L and LCCN.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	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 30, 2021	0.73

The correlation between CEBG.L and LCCN.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CEBG.L vs. LCCN.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: 18
CEBG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
CEBG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
CEBG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 19
CEBG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
CEBG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 17

LCCN.L

LCCN.L Risk / Return Rank: 13
LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
LCCN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
LCCN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 13
LCCN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
LCCN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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. LCCN.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 MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.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.

	CEBG.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.62	0.31	+0.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.93	0.57	+0.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.07	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.73	0.35	+0.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.65	0.74	+0.91
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current CEBG.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.62, which is higher than the LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEBG.L and LCCN.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CEBG.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.62	0.31	+0.31
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.14	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.16	0.09	-0.25

Drawdowns

CEBG.L vs. LCCN.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEBG.L drawdown since its inception was -46.41%, smaller than the maximum LCCN.L drawdown of -56.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEBG.L and LCCN.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEBG.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-46.41%	-56.30%	+9.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.28%	-17.02%	+3.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.10%	-24.76%	-5.34%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-49.10%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.24%	-31.69%	+7.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-24.43%	-27.00%	+2.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.89%	8.07%	-2.18%

Volatility

CEBG.L vs. LCCN.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A (CEBG.L) is 4.18%, while Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) has a volatility of 7.53%. This indicates that CEBG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LCCN.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CEBG.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.18%	7.53%	-3.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.61%	14.15%	-3.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.81%	19.53%	-3.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.29%	28.03%	-3.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.29%	26.94%	-2.65%

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

CEBG.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than LCCN.L's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEBG.L vs. LCCN.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CEBG.L and LCCN.L in my portfolio?

CEBG.L and LCCN.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.

Which ETF is better, CEBG.L or LCCN.L?

On fees, LCCN.L is cheaper at 0.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CEBG.L or LCCN.L?

LCCN.L is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CEBG.L.

What is the main difference between CEBG.L and LCCN.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for CEBG.L and 0.29% for LCCN.L.