PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CHIN.L vs. CNAL.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CHIN.L vs. CNAL.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026
Documentation

CHIN.L (ICBC Credit Suisse UCITS ETF SICAV - ICBCCS WisdomTree S&P China 500 UCITS ETF) and CNAL.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) are both China Equities funds - CHIN.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD while CNAL.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CHIN.L returned -1.65%/yr vs -0.72%/yr for CNAL.L. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CHIN.L charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for CNAL.L.

Performance

CHIN.L vs. CNAL.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ICBC Credit Suisse UCITS ETF SICAV - ICBCCS WisdomTree S&P China 500 UCITS ETF (CHIN.L) and Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CHIN.L is traded in USD, while CNAL.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the CNAL.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CHIN.L achieves a 2.44% return, which is significantly lower than CNAL.L's 7.03% return.

CHIN.L

1D
-0.31%
1M
-2.50%
6M
-1.54%
YTD
2.44%
1Y
21.00%
3Y*
11.38%
5Y*
-1.65%
10Y*
—

CNAL.L

1D
0.30%
1M
-2.24%
6M
4.07%
YTD
7.03%
1Y
28.59%
3Y*
10.21%
5Y*
-0.72%
10Y*
4.57%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CHIN.L vs. CNAL.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CHIN.L
ICBC Credit Suisse UCITS ETF SICAV - ICBCCS WisdomTree S&P China 500 UCITS ETF		2.44%32.60%14.52%-13.55%-25.21%-9.74%34.99%27.63%-22.79%43.34%
CNAL.L
Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR		7.03%26.41%10.88%-14.62%-26.00%3.57%42.19%37.89%-30.55%21.76%

Correlation

The correlation between CHIN.L and CNAL.L is 0.88, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.88

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

0.87

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.87

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2016

0.79

The correlation between CHIN.L and CNAL.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

CHIN.L vs. CNAL.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CHIN.L
CNAL.L

Technology

25.9%
33.2%

Financial Services

14.7%
16.8%

Industrials

14.6%
17.4%

Consumer Cyclical

12.3%
4.8%

Basic Materials

10.6%
10.2%

Communication Services

6.3%
0.5%

Healthcare

5.7%
3.8%

Consumer Defensive

4.1%
6.0%

Utilities

2.4%
2.9%

Energy

2.4%
2.7%

Real Estate

1.0%
0.6%

Technology

CHIN.L
25.9%
CNAL.L
33.2%

Financial Services

CHIN.L
14.7%
CNAL.L
16.8%

Industrials

CHIN.L
14.6%
CNAL.L
17.4%

Consumer Cyclical

CHIN.L
12.3%
CNAL.L
4.8%

Basic Materials

CHIN.L
10.6%
CNAL.L
10.2%

Communication Services

CHIN.L
6.3%
CNAL.L
0.5%

Healthcare

CHIN.L
5.7%
CNAL.L
3.8%

Consumer Defensive

CHIN.L
4.1%
CNAL.L
6.0%

Utilities

CHIN.L
2.4%
CNAL.L
2.9%

Energy

CHIN.L
2.4%
CNAL.L
2.7%

Real Estate

CHIN.L
1.0%
CNAL.L
0.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

ICBC Credit Suisse UCITS ETF SICAV - ICBCCS WisdomTree S&P China 500 UCITS ETF

Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR

Often compared with CHIN.L:
CHIN.L vs. 2331.HKCHIN.L vs. CNYACHIN.L vs. RQFI.LCHIN.L vs. LICHIN.L vs. XCNA.LCHIN.L vs. M9SV.LCHIN.L vs. AH50.L
Often compared with CNAL.L:
CNAL.L vs. FLXC.LCNAL.L vs. JRCD.LCNAL.L vs. FRCH.LCNAL.L vs. XCNA.LCNAL.L vs. C500.LCNAL.L vs. RQFI.LCNAL.L vs. 500U.L

Return for Risk

CHIN.L vs. CNAL.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CHIN.L
CHIN.L Risk / Return Rank: 4040
Overall Rank
CHIN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3535
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CHIN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3535
Sortino Ratio Rank
CHIN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3333
Omega Ratio Rank
CHIN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
CHIN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4040
Martin Ratio Rank
CNAL.L
CNAL.L Risk / Return Rank: 5959
Overall Rank
CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5454
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNAL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNAL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5252
Omega Ratio Rank
CNAL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNAL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6464
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.

CHIN.L vs. CNAL.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ICBC Credit Suisse UCITS ETF SICAV - ICBCCS WisdomTree S&P China 500 UCITS ETF (CHIN.L) and Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.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.

CHIN.LCNAL.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.07
1.53

-0.47

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.58
2.15

-0.57

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.19

1.27

-0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.32

3.58

-1.26

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.26

9.63

-4.37

CHIN.L vs. CNAL.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CHIN.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.07, which is lower than the CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CHIN.L and CNAL.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

CHIN.L vs. CNAL.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CHIN.L drawdown since its inception was -55.88%, roughly equal to the maximum CNAL.L drawdown of -56.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CHIN.L and CNAL.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CHIN.LCNAL.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-55.88%

-56.20%

+0.32%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.01%

-7.95%

-1.06%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.03%

-28.64%

+4.61%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-47.37%

-44.89%

-2.48%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-49.84%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-22.87%

-15.63%

-7.24%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-24.38%

-33.77%

+9.39%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.99%

2.96%

+1.03%

Volatility

CHIN.L vs. CNAL.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ICBC Credit Suisse UCITS ETF SICAV - ICBCCS WisdomTree S&P China 500 UCITS ETF (CHIN.L) is 6.60%, while Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L) has a volatility of 8.69%. This indicates that CHIN.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNAL.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CHIN.LCNAL.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.60%

8.69%

-2.09%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.43%

14.36%

+0.07%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.63%

18.55%

+1.08%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.54%

23.16%

+1.38%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.03%

22.87%

+0.16%

CHIN.L vs. CNAL.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CHIN.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than CNAL.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

CHIN.L vs. CNAL.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CHIN.L nor CNAL.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
CHIN.L
ICBC Credit Suisse UCITS ETF SICAV - ICBCCS WisdomTree S&P China 500 UCITS ETF		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%1.33%1.01%1.19%2.38%
CNAL.L
Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

CHIN.L and CNAL.L have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

CNAL.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CHIN.L.

CHIN.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while CNAL.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: ICBC Credit Suisse Asset Management and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CHIN.L and 0.35% for CNAL.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CHIN.L and CNAL.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