PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CNAA.L vs. HMCA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CNAA.L vs. HMCA.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CNAA.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) and HMCA.L (HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, from Amundi and HSBC respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNAA.L returned -1.13%/yr vs -1.00%/yr for HMCA.L. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CNAA.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for HMCA.L.

Performance

CNAA.L vs. HMCA.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 HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with CNAA.L having a 8.87% return and HMCA.L slightly lower at 8.51%.

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%

HMCA.L

1D
-0.48%
1M
-1.02%
YTD
8.51%
6M
11.15%
1Y
35.17%
3Y*
11.29%
5Y*
-1.00%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
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%-15.97%
HMCA.L
HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF		8.51%26.23%11.59%-14.28%-25.98%3.23%43.32%35.40%-14.49%

Correlation

The correlation between CNAA.L and HMCA.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

0.95

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

0.95

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

0.95

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 30, 2018

0.94

The correlation between CNAA.L and HMCA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors
CNAA.L
HMCA.L

Technology

27.2%
32.1%

Financial Services

18.8%
17.5%

Industrials

15.7%
15.4%

Basic Materials

12.4%
11.2%

Consumer Defensive

7.4%
6.6%

Consumer Cyclical

5.6%
5.2%

Healthcare

4.3%
3.8%

Energy

3.4%
3.2%

Utilities

3.2%
3.3%

Communication Services

1.4%
1.3%

Real Estate

0.6%
0.5%

Technology

CNAA.L
27.2%
HMCA.L
32.1%

Financial Services

CNAA.L
18.8%
HMCA.L
17.5%

Industrials

CNAA.L
15.7%
HMCA.L
15.4%

Basic Materials

CNAA.L
12.4%
HMCA.L
11.2%

Consumer Defensive

CNAA.L
7.4%
HMCA.L
6.6%

Consumer Cyclical

CNAA.L
5.6%
HMCA.L
5.2%

Healthcare

CNAA.L
4.3%
HMCA.L
3.8%

Energy

CNAA.L
3.4%
HMCA.L
3.2%

Utilities

CNAA.L
3.2%
HMCA.L
3.3%

Communication Services

CNAA.L
1.4%
HMCA.L
1.3%

Real Estate

CNAA.L
0.6%
HMCA.L
0.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR

HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF

Often compared with CNAA.L:
CNAA.L vs. LCCN.LCNAA.L vs. C500.LCNAA.L vs. ANXU.LCNAA.L vs. JRCD.LCNAA.L vs. FLXC.LCNAA.L vs. CA3S.LCNAA.L vs. FRCH.L
Often compared with HMCA.L:
HMCA.L vs. NUCG.LHMCA.L vs. BCHS.LHMCA.L vs. HERG.LHMCA.L vs. UC04.LHMCA.L vs. LYPG.DEHMCA.L vs. CNYAHMCA.L vs. SPX5.L

Return for Risk

CNAA.L vs. HMCA.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
HMCA.L
HMCA.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
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. HMCA.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 HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.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.LHMCA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.15
2.21

-0.05

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.00
3.03

-0.03

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.38

1.38

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.81

4.77

+0.04

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.29

14.16

+0.13

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.L vs. HMCA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNAA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.15, which is comparable to the HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNAA.L and HMCA.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.LHMCA.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.15

2.21

-0.05

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.05

-0.04

-0.01

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.23

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.22

0.28

-0.06

Drawdowns

CNAA.L vs. HMCA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNAA.L drawdown since its inception was -56.07%, which is greater than HMCA.L's maximum drawdown of -49.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNAA.L and HMCA.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CNAA.LHMCA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-56.07%

-49.15%

-6.92%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.51%

-7.49%

-0.02%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-28.67%

-28.26%

-0.41%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-44.55%

-44.46%

-0.09%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-49.66%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-14.27%

-13.02%

-1.25%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-33.05%

-21.69%

-11.36%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.53%

2.53%

0.00%

Volatility

CNAA.L vs. HMCA.L - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L) and HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L) have volatilities of 6.38% and 6.23%, 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.LHMCA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.38%

6.23%

+0.15%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.91%

11.24%

+0.67%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.80%

16.22%

+0.58%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.47%

22.71%

-0.24%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.50%

23.95%

-1.45%

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

CNAA.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than HMCA.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNAA.L vs. HMCA.L - Dividend Comparison

CNAA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while HMCA.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.68%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
CNAA.L
Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
HMCA.L
HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF		1.68%1.76%1.97%2.20%1.76%1.09%0.88%1.78%0.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

With a correlation of 0.94, CNAA.L and HMCA.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, HMCA.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

HMCA.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CNAA.L.

Both ETFs track MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and HSBC. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CNAA.L and 0.30% for HMCA.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CNAA.L and HMCA.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