PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CNAL.L vs. CHIN.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CNAL.L vs. CHIN.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L) and ICBC Credit Suisse UCITS ETF SICAV - ICBCCS WisdomTree S&P China 500 UCITS ETF (CHIN.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNAL.L achieves a 6.41% return, which is significantly higher than CHIN.L's 2.02% return.


CNAL.L

1D
-0.84%
1M
-3.11%
6M
3.34%
YTD
6.41%
1Y
27.12%
3Y*
9.00%
5Y*
-0.39%
10Y*
4.29%

CHIN.L

1D
-1.35%
1M
-3.36%
6M
-2.14%
YTD
2.02%
1Y
19.72%
3Y*
10.17%
5Y*
-1.31%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CNAL.L vs. CHIN.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CNAL.L
Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR
6.41%17.54%12.76%-18.90%-17.14%4.51%37.96%32.57%-26.38%11.18%
CHIN.L
ICBC Credit Suisse UCITS ETF SICAV - ICBCCS WisdomTree S&P China 500 UCITS ETF
2.02%23.15%16.52%-17.87%-16.32%-8.88%31.02%22.78%-18.21%30.95%

Correlation

The correlation between CNAL.L and CHIN.L is 0.88, 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

0.88

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

0.85

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

0.85

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2016

0.78

The correlation between CNAL.L and CHIN.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

CNAL.L vs. CHIN.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CNAL.L
CHIN.L

Technology

33.2%
25.9%

Industrials

17.4%
14.6%

Financial Services

16.8%
14.7%

Basic Materials

10.2%
10.6%

Consumer Defensive

6.0%
4.1%

Consumer Cyclical

4.8%
12.3%

Healthcare

3.8%
5.7%

Utilities

2.9%
2.4%

Energy

2.7%
2.4%

Real Estate

0.6%
1.0%

Communication Services

0.5%
6.3%

Technology

CNAL.L
33.2%
CHIN.L
25.9%

Industrials

CNAL.L
17.4%
CHIN.L
14.6%

Financial Services

CNAL.L
16.8%
CHIN.L
14.7%

Basic Materials

CNAL.L
10.2%
CHIN.L
10.6%

Consumer Defensive

CNAL.L
6.0%
CHIN.L
4.1%

Consumer Cyclical

CNAL.L
4.8%
CHIN.L
12.3%

Healthcare

CNAL.L
3.8%
CHIN.L
5.7%

Utilities

CNAL.L
2.9%
CHIN.L
2.4%

Energy

CNAL.L
2.7%
CHIN.L
2.4%

Real Estate

CNAL.L
0.6%
CHIN.L
1.0%

Communication Services

CNAL.L
0.5%
CHIN.L
6.3%

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

CNAL.L vs. CHIN.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CNAL.L
CNAL.L Risk / Return Rank: 5959
Overall Rank
CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5454
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNAL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNAL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5252
Omega Ratio Rank
CNAL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNAL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6464
Martin Ratio Rank

CHIN.L
CHIN.L Risk / Return Rank: 4040
Overall Rank
CHIN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3535
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CHIN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3535
Sortino Ratio Rank
CHIN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3333
Omega Ratio Rank
CHIN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
CHIN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4040
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.

CNAL.L vs. CHIN.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L) and ICBC Credit Suisse UCITS ETF SICAV - ICBCCS WisdomTree S&P China 500 UCITS ETF (CHIN.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.


CNAL.LCHIN.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.49

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.59

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

1.19

+0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.13

2.22

+0.91

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.22

5.11

+4.11

CNAL.L vs. CHIN.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.51, which is higher than the CHIN.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNAL.L and CHIN.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...

Drawdowns

CNAL.L vs. CHIN.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNAL.L drawdown since its inception was -51.00%, roughly equal to the maximum CHIN.L drawdown of -51.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNAL.L and CHIN.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CNAL.LCHIN.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-51.00%

-51.46%

+0.46%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.64%

-8.84%

+0.20%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.58%

-22.60%

-3.98%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-42.38%

-42.64%

+0.26%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.10%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-13.52%

-20.78%

+7.26%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-26.74%

-20.63%

-6.11%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.93%

3.85%

-0.92%

Volatility

CNAL.L vs. CHIN.L - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L) has a higher volatility of 8.67% compared to ICBC Credit Suisse UCITS ETF SICAV - ICBCCS WisdomTree S&P China 500 UCITS ETF (CHIN.L) at 6.73%. This indicates that CNAL.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CHIN.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CNAL.LCHIN.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.67%

6.73%

+1.94%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.50%

13.90%

-0.40%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.85%

19.19%

-1.34%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.66%

23.39%

-1.73%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.03%

22.70%

-0.67%

CNAL.L vs. CHIN.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNAL.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than CHIN.L's 0.55% expense ratio.


Dividends

CNAL.L vs. CHIN.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CNAL.L nor CHIN.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
CHIN.L
ICBC Credit Suisse UCITS ETF SICAV - ICBCCS WisdomTree S&P China 500 UCITS ETF
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%1.33%1.01%1.19%2.38%
CNAL.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%

Frequently Asked Questions


CNAL.L and CHIN.L have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

CNAL.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CHIN.L.

CNAL.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while CHIN.L tracks MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and ICBC Credit Suisse Asset Management. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CNAL.L and 0.55% for CHIN.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CNAL.L and CHIN.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