CI2G.L vs. HTWN.L
CI2G.L (Amundi MSCI India UCITS ETF USD) and HTWN.L (HSBC MSCI Taiwan Capped UCITS ETF USD) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - CI2G.L tracks the MSCI India NR USD while HTWN.L tracks the MSCI Taiwan NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CI2G.L returned 7.30%/yr vs 23.33%/yr for HTWN.L. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CI2G.L charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for HTWN.L.
Performance
CI2G.L vs. HTWN.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CI2G.L achieves a -12.55% return, which is significantly lower than HTWN.L's 67.79% return. Over the past 10 years, CI2G.L has underperformed HTWN.L with an annualized return of 7.30%, while HTWN.L has yielded a comparatively higher 23.33% annualized return.
CI2G.L
- 1D
- 1.23%
- 1M
- -3.40%
- YTD
- -12.55%
- 6M
- -13.41%
- 1Y
- -12.56%
- 3Y*
- 1.96%
- 5Y*
- 3.82%
- 10Y*
- 7.30%
HTWN.L
- 1D
- -2.08%
- 1M
- 12.18%
- YTD
- 67.79%
- 6M
- 70.49%
- 1Y
- 116.34%
- 3Y*
- 41.27%
- 5Y*
- 23.42%
- 10Y*
- 23.33%
CI2G.L vs. HTWN.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CI2G.L Amundi MSCI India UCITS ETF USD | -12.55% | -5.46% | 11.34% | 12.20% | 2.39% | 24.86% | 10.51% | 1.30% | -2.46% | 24.58% |
HTWN.L HSBC MSCI Taiwan Capped UCITS ETF USD | 67.79% | 23.15% | 27.50% | 21.28% | -20.57% | 29.44% | 31.41% | 29.56% | -2.68% | 15.90% |
Correlation
The correlation between CI2G.L and HTWN.L is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.24 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.27 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.28 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 9, 2015 | 0.28 |
CI2G.L vs. HTWN.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CI2G.L
HTWN.L
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Energy
-
Basic Materials
Technology
Consumer Defensive
Healthcare
Communication Services
Utilities
-
Real Estate
-
Financial Services
CI2G.L
HTWN.L
Consumer Cyclical
CI2G.L
HTWN.L
Industrials
CI2G.L
HTWN.L
Energy
CI2G.L
HTWN.L
-
Basic Materials
CI2G.L
HTWN.L
Technology
CI2G.L
HTWN.L
Consumer Defensive
CI2G.L
HTWN.L
Healthcare
CI2G.L
HTWN.L
Communication Services
CI2G.L
HTWN.L
Utilities
CI2G.L
HTWN.L
-
Real Estate
CI2G.L
HTWN.L
-
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
CI2G.L vs. HTWN.L — Risk / Return Rank
CI2G.L
HTWN.L
CI2G.L vs. HTWN.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi MSCI India UCITS ETF USD (CI2G.L) and HSBC MSCI Taiwan Capped UCITS ETF USD (HTWN.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.
| CI2G.L | HTWN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -5.90 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -6.98 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.89 | 1.82 | -0.93 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.59 | 13.22 | -13.81 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.37 | 36.40 | -37.77 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CI2G.L | HTWN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.75 | 5.15 | -5.90 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.24 | 1.15 | -0.91 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.37 | 1.43 | -1.06 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.40 | 1.12 | -0.72 |
Drawdowns
CI2G.L vs. HTWN.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CI2G.L drawdown since its inception was -37.13%, which is greater than HTWN.L's maximum drawdown of -31.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CI2G.L and HTWN.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CI2G.L | HTWN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -37.13% | -31.84% | -5.29% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -20.32% | -8.86% | -11.46% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -27.30% | -29.76% | +2.46% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -27.30% | -29.97% | +2.67% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -37.13% | -29.97% | -7.16% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -23.55% | -2.08% | -21.47% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.24% | -7.18% | -0.06% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.84% | 3.22% | +5.62% |
Volatility
CI2G.L vs. HTWN.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Amundi MSCI India UCITS ETF USD (CI2G.L) is 5.70%, while HSBC MSCI Taiwan Capped UCITS ETF USD (HTWN.L) has a volatility of 9.73%. This indicates that CI2G.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HTWN.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CI2G.L | HTWN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.70% | 9.73% | -4.03% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.70% | 18.35% | -4.65% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.10% | 22.75% | -6.65% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.04% | 20.88% | -4.84% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.77% | 23.42% | -3.65% |
CI2G.L vs. HTWN.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CI2G.L has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than HTWN.L's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
CI2G.L vs. HTWN.L - Dividend Comparison
CI2G.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while HTWN.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.97%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CI2G.L Amundi MSCI India UCITS ETF USD | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
HTWN.L HSBC MSCI Taiwan Capped UCITS ETF USD | 0.97% | 1.61% | 1.17% | 2.79% | 3.04% | 1.11% | 1.79% | 2.12% | 2.55% | 2.04% | 2.32% | 2.61% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CI2G.L and HTWN.L have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, HTWN.L is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
HTWN.L is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for CI2G.L.
CI2G.L tracks MSCI India NR USD, while HTWN.L tracks MSCI Taiwan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and HSBC. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for CI2G.L and 0.50% for HTWN.L.
Find the right allocation for CI2G.L and HTWN.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