CNAA.DE vs. H4ZP.DE

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CNAA.DE (Amundi MSCI China A UCITS ETF Acc) and H4ZP.DE (HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF USD) are both China Equities funds - CNAA.DE tracks the MSCI China A while H4ZP.DE tracks the MSCI China. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNAA.DE returned -0.21%/yr vs -4.00%/yr for H4ZP.DE. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CNAA.DE charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.28%/yr for H4ZP.DE.

Performance

CNAA.DE vs. H4ZP.DE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a €10,000 investment in Amundi MSCI China A UCITS ETF Acc (CNAA.DE) and HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF USD (H4ZP.DE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNAA.DE achieves a 9.91% return, which is significantly higher than H4ZP.DE's -6.53% return.

CNAA.DE

• 1D: -0.79%
• 1M: 0.35%
• YTD: 9.91%
• 6M: 11.19%
• 1Y: 33.60%
• 3Y*: 8.43%
• 5Y*: -0.21%
• 10Y*: —

H4ZP.DE

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: -3.31%
• YTD: -6.53%
• 6M: -9.00%
• 1Y: 2.93%
• 3Y*: 8.20%
• 5Y*: -4.00%
• 10Y*: 4.72%

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

CNAA.DE vs. H4ZP.DE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CNAA.DE Amundi MSCI China A UCITS ETF Acc	9.91%	10.09%	19.81%	-17.19%	-20.96%	13.50%	28.18%	12.50%
H4ZP.DE HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF USD	-6.53%	16.54%	28.55%	-14.47%	-15.34%	-16.86%	15.20%	17.91%

Correlation

The correlation between CNAA.DE and H4ZP.DE is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.72
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 30, 2019	0.73

The correlation between CNAA.DE and H4ZP.DE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CNAA.DE vs. H4ZP.DE — Risk / Return Rank

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

CNAA.DE

CNAA.DE Risk / Return Rank: 69
CNAA.DE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
CNAA.DE Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
CNAA.DE Omega Ratio Rank: 61
CNAA.DE Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
CNAA.DE Martin Ratio Rank: 73

H4ZP.DE

H4ZP.DE Risk / Return Rank: 11
H4ZP.DE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
H4ZP.DE Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
H4ZP.DE Omega Ratio Rank: 11
H4ZP.DE Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
H4ZP.DE Martin Ratio Rank: 11

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.

CNAA.DE vs. H4ZP.DE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi MSCI China A UCITS ETF Acc (CNAA.DE) and HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF USD (H4ZP.DE). 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.

	CNAA.DE	H4ZP.DE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.04	0.17	+1.87
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.90	0.38	+2.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.04	+0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.08	0.19	+4.89
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.52	0.39	+13.13
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CNAA.DE vs. H4ZP.DE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNAA.DE Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is higher than the H4ZP.DE Sharpe Ratio of 0.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNAA.DE and H4ZP.DE, 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

	CNAA.DE	H4ZP.DE	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.04	0.17	+1.87
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.01	-0.14	+0.13
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.19	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.29	0.19	+0.10

Drawdowns

CNAA.DE vs. H4ZP.DE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNAA.DE drawdown since its inception was -43.90%, smaller than the maximum H4ZP.DE drawdown of -55.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNAA.DE and H4ZP.DE.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNAA.DE	H4ZP.DE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.90%	-55.74%	+11.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.65%	-16.83%	+10.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.84%	-24.56%	-3.28%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.85%	-49.16%	+7.31%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-55.74%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.33%	-31.17%	+19.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.23%	-23.08%	+3.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.50%	8.15%	-5.65%

Volatility

CNAA.DE vs. H4ZP.DE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amundi MSCI China A UCITS ETF Acc (CNAA.DE) is 6.13%, while HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF USD (H4ZP.DE) has a volatility of 7.30%. This indicates that CNAA.DE experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than H4ZP.DE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNAA.DE	H4ZP.DE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.13%	7.30%	-1.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.38%	13.14%	-1.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.52%	18.46%	-1.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.44%	27.70%	-6.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.51%	25.25%	-2.74%

CNAA.DE vs. H4ZP.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNAA.DE has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than H4ZP.DE's 0.28% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNAA.DE vs. H4ZP.DE - Dividend Comparison

CNAA.DE has not paid dividends to shareholders, while H4ZP.DE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.14%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CNAA.DE Amundi MSCI China A UCITS ETF Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
H4ZP.DE HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF USD	2.14%	2.39%	3.10%	2.10%	1.97%	1.28%	0.96%	1.57%	1.40%	0.78%	1.97%	2.89%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNAA.DE and H4ZP.DE in my portfolio?

CNAA.DE and H4ZP.DE have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CNAA.DE or H4ZP.DE?

On fees, H4ZP.DE is cheaper at 0.28% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNAA.DE or H4ZP.DE?

H4ZP.DE is cheaper with a 0.28% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CNAA.DE.

What is the main difference between CNAA.DE and H4ZP.DE?

CNAA.DE tracks MSCI China A, while H4ZP.DE tracks MSCI China. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and HSBC. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CNAA.DE and 0.28% for H4ZP.DE.