PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CNAA.L vs. AH50.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CNAA.L vs. AH50.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 Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D (AH50.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNAA.L achieves a 8.87% return, which is significantly lower than AH50.L's 12.41% return. Over the past 10 years, CNAA.L has underperformed AH50.L with an annualized return of 5.10%, while AH50.L has yielded a comparatively higher 7.74% 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%

AH50.L

1D
-0.30%
1M
0.00%
YTD
12.41%
6M
16.50%
1Y
33.76%
3Y*
16.08%
5Y*
0.20%
10Y*
7.74%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CNAA.L vs. AH50.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
AH50.L
Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D
12.41%26.76%17.77%-13.04%-21.01%-6.02%28.04%34.30%-21.35%34.04%

Correlation

The correlation between CNAA.L and AH50.L is 0.94, 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

0.94

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

0.90

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

0.90

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.87

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 31, 2016

0.87

The correlation between CNAA.L and AH50.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

CNAA.L vs. AH50.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CNAA.L
AH50.L

Technology

27.2%
27.6%

Financial Services

18.8%
11.4%

Industrials

15.7%
20.4%

Basic Materials

12.4%
14.3%

Consumer Defensive

7.4%
5.3%

Consumer Cyclical

5.6%
7.5%

Healthcare

4.3%
6.1%

Energy

3.4%
2.6%

Utilities

3.2%
2.4%

Communication Services

1.4%
1.8%

Real Estate

0.6%
0.7%

Technology

CNAA.L
27.2%
AH50.L
27.6%

Financial Services

CNAA.L
18.8%
AH50.L
11.4%

Industrials

CNAA.L
15.7%
AH50.L
20.4%

Basic Materials

CNAA.L
12.4%
AH50.L
14.3%

Consumer Defensive

CNAA.L
7.4%
AH50.L
5.3%

Consumer Cyclical

CNAA.L
5.6%
AH50.L
7.5%

Healthcare

CNAA.L
4.3%
AH50.L
6.1%

Energy

CNAA.L
3.4%
AH50.L
2.6%

Utilities

CNAA.L
3.2%
AH50.L
2.4%

Communication Services

CNAA.L
1.4%
AH50.L
1.8%

Real Estate

CNAA.L
0.6%
AH50.L
0.7%

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

CNAA.L vs. AH50.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: 7272
Overall Rank
CNAA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNAA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNAA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
CNAA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNAA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
Martin Ratio Rank

AH50.L
AH50.L Risk / Return Rank: 6363
Overall Rank
AH50.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5757
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AH50.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5454
Sortino Ratio Rank
AH50.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5656
Omega Ratio Rank
AH50.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
AH50.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
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.

CNAA.L vs. AH50.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 Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D (AH50.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.LAH50.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.26

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.41

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.38

1.34

+0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.81

4.11

+0.70

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.29

12.57

+1.73

CNAA.L vs. AH50.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNAA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.15, which is comparable to the AH50.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNAA.L and AH50.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CNAA.LAH50.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.15

1.89

+0.26

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.05

0.01

-0.06

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.23

0.33

-0.10

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.22

0.33

-0.11

Drawdowns

CNAA.L vs. AH50.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNAA.L drawdown since its inception was -56.07%, which is greater than AH50.L's maximum drawdown of -50.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNAA.L and AH50.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CNAA.LAH50.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-56.07%

-50.58%

-5.49%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.51%

-8.30%

+0.79%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-28.67%

-25.95%

-2.72%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-44.55%

-44.81%

+0.26%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-49.66%

-50.58%

+0.92%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-14.27%

-8.78%

-5.49%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-33.05%

-21.40%

-11.65%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.53%

2.72%

-0.19%

Volatility

CNAA.L vs. AH50.L - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L) and Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D (AH50.L) have volatilities of 6.38% and 6.50%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CNAA.LAH50.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.38%

6.50%

-0.12%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.91%

13.07%

-1.16%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.80%

18.04%

-1.24%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.47%

24.33%

-1.86%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.50%

23.38%

-0.88%

CNAA.L vs. AH50.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNAA.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than AH50.L's 0.65% expense ratio.


Dividends

CNAA.L vs. AH50.L - Dividend Comparison

CNAA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while AH50.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.08%.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020
AH50.L
Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D
2.08%2.79%2.37%2.72%3.00%1.78%1.57%
CNAA.L
Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.94, CNAA.L and AH50.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

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

CNAA.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AH50.L.

CNAA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while AH50.L tracks MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CNAA.L and 0.65% for AH50.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CNAA.L and AH50.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