CNAA.L vs. 500G.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CNAA.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) and 500G.L (Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - CNAA.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while 500G.L is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CNAA.L returned 5.10%/yr vs 15.40%/yr for 500G.L. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CNAA.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for 500G.L.

Performance

CNAA.L vs. 500G.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L) and Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc (500G.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CNAA.L is traded in USD, while 500G.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the 500G.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNAA.L achieves a 8.87% return, which is significantly lower than 500G.L's 10.30% return. Over the past 10 years, CNAA.L has underperformed 500G.L with an annualized return of 5.10%, while 500G.L has yielded a comparatively higher 15.40% annualized return.

CNAA.L

• 1D: -0.64%
• 1M: -0.71%
• YTD: 8.87%
• 6M: 11.68%
• 1Y: 35.54%
• 3Y*: 11.42%
• 5Y*: -1.13%
• 10Y*: 5.10%

500G.L

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 3.23%
• YTD: 10.30%
• 6M: 10.64%
• 1Y: 27.73%
• 3Y*: 22.19%
• 5Y*: 13.84%
• 10Y*: 15.40%

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

CNAA.L vs. 500G.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CNAA.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR	8.87%	26.13%	10.92%	-14.20%	-25.98%	3.21%	42.77%	36.87%	-30.39%	22.13%
500G.L Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc	10.30%	17.70%	25.32%	26.22%	-18.60%	30.16%	17.30%	32.59%	-5.96%	21.33%

Correlation

The correlation between CNAA.L and 500G.L is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.31
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.22
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.28
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2016	0.34

The correlation between CNAA.L and 500G.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.22 (3 years) to 0.34 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

CNAA.L vs. 500G.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CNAA.L

CNAA.L Risk / Return Rank: 72
CNAA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
CNAA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
CNAA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
CNAA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
CNAA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 76

500G.L

500G.L Risk / Return Rank: 82
500G.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
500G.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
500G.L Omega Ratio Rank: 85
500G.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
500G.L Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.L vs. 500G.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L) and Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc (500G.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.

	CNAA.L	500G.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.15	2.52	-0.37
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.00	3.60	-0.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.45	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.81	3.14	+1.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.29	13.55	+0.74
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.L vs. 500G.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNAA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.15, which is comparable to the 500G.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNAA.L and 500G.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

	CNAA.L	500G.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.15	2.52	-0.37
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.05	0.88	-0.93
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.23	0.96	-0.73
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.22	1.01	-0.79

Drawdowns

CNAA.L vs. 500G.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNAA.L drawdown since its inception was -56.07%, which is greater than 500G.L's maximum drawdown of -33.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNAA.L and 500G.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNAA.L	500G.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.07%	-33.53%	-22.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.51%	-8.87%	+1.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.67%	-19.17%	-9.50%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.55%	-24.88%	-19.67%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-49.66%	-33.53%	-16.13%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.27%	-0.53%	-13.74%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.05%	-4.23%	-28.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.53%	2.06%	+0.47%

Volatility

CNAA.L vs. 500G.L - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L) has a higher volatility of 6.38% compared to Amundi S&P 500 Swap UCITS ETF USD Acc (500G.L) at 2.59%. This indicates that CNAA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than 500G.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNAA.L	500G.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.38%	2.59%	+3.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.91%	7.97%	+3.94%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.80%	11.05%	+5.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.47%	15.65%	+6.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.50%	16.13%	+6.37%

CNAA.L vs. 500G.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNAA.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than 500G.L's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNAA.L vs. 500G.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CNAA.L nor 500G.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNAA.L and 500G.L in my portfolio?

CNAA.L and 500G.L have a correlation of 0.31, 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.L or 500G.L?

On fees, 500G.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNAA.L or 500G.L?

500G.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CNAA.L.

What is the main difference between CNAA.L and 500G.L?

CNAA.L is categorized as China Equities, while 500G.L is S&P 500. CNAA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while 500G.L tracks S&P 500. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CNAA.L and 0.15% for 500G.L.