CM5S.L vs. CNAL.L
CM5S.L (Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) and CNAL.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, from Invesco and Amundi respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CM5S.L returned 19.85%/yr vs 7.96%/yr for CNAL.L. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.35% expense ratio.
Performance
CM5S.L vs. CNAL.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CM5S.L achieves a 19.25% return, which is significantly higher than CNAL.L's 8.97% return.
CM5S.L
- 1D
- -0.01%
- 1M
- 2.36%
- YTD
- 19.25%
- 6M
- 27.95%
- 1Y
- 71.20%
- 3Y*
- 19.85%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CNAL.L
- 1D
- -0.64%
- 1M
- 2.13%
- YTD
- 8.97%
- 6M
- 12.11%
- 1Y
- 37.56%
- 3Y*
- 7.96%
- 5Y*
- -0.03%
- 10Y*
- —
CM5S.L vs. CNAL.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CM5S.L Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc | 19.25% | 42.07% | 14.29% | -14.04% | 13.69% |
CNAL.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR | 8.97% | 16.96% | 16.16% | -18.82% | 1.44% |
Correlation
The correlation between CM5S.L and CNAL.L is 0.85, 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 | 0.85 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.55 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 10, 2022 | 0.47 |
Over the past year, CM5S.L and CNAL.L have become more correlated (0.85) than their long-term average of 0.47, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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
CM5S.L vs. CNAL.L — Risk / Return Rank
CM5S.L
CNAL.L
CM5S.L vs. CNAL.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (CM5S.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.
| CM5S.L | CNAL.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.08 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.96 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.57 | 1.43 | +0.15 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.48 | 5.41 | +0.07 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 21.45 | 15.33 | +6.12 |
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
| CM5S.L | CNAL.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.49 | 2.41 | +1.08 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | -0.00 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.68 | 0.33 | +0.35 |
Drawdowns
CM5S.L vs. CNAL.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CM5S.L drawdown since its inception was -38.57%, smaller than the maximum CNAL.L drawdown of -44.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CM5S.L and CNAL.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CM5S.L | CNAL.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -38.57% | -44.83% | +6.26% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.93% | -6.91% | -6.02% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -26.12% | -26.58% | +0.46% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -42.19% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.43% | -11.26% | +6.83% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -13.46% | -21.39% | +7.93% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.31% | 2.44% | +0.87% |
Volatility
CM5S.L vs. CNAL.L - Volatility Comparison
Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (CM5S.L) has a higher volatility of 6.29% compared to Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L) at 5.51%. This indicates that CM5S.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CNAL.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CM5S.L | CNAL.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.29% | 5.51% | +0.78% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 15.26% | 10.58% | +4.68% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.30% | 15.52% | +4.78% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 25.03% | 31.33% | -6.30% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.03% | 40.07% | -15.04% |
CM5S.L vs. CNAL.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both CM5S.L and CNAL.L have an expense ratio of 0.35%.
Dividends
CM5S.L vs. CNAL.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither CM5S.L nor CNAL.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
CM5S.L and CNAL.L have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
Both ETFs have the same 0.35% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CM5S.L and CNAL.L have the same expense ratio: 0.35% per year.
Both ETFs track MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Amundi.
Find the right allocation for CM5S.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