CNAL.L vs. CHIN.L
CNAL.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) and CHIN.L (ICBC Credit Suisse UCITS ETF SICAV - ICBCCS WisdomTree S&P China 500 UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds - CNAL.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY while CHIN.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNAL.L returned -0.39%/yr vs -1.31%/yr for CHIN.L. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CNAL.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for CHIN.L.
Performance
CNAL.L vs. CHIN.L - Performance Comparison
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*
- —
CNAL.L vs. CHIN.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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
Industrials
Financial Services
Basic Materials
Consumer Defensive
Consumer Cyclical
Healthcare
Utilities
Energy
Real Estate
Communication Services
Technology
CNAL.L
CHIN.L
Industrials
CNAL.L
CHIN.L
Financial Services
CNAL.L
CHIN.L
Basic Materials
CNAL.L
CHIN.L
Consumer Defensive
CNAL.L
CHIN.L
Consumer Cyclical
CNAL.L
CHIN.L
Healthcare
CNAL.L
CHIN.L
Utilities
CNAL.L
CHIN.L
Energy
CNAL.L
CHIN.L
Real Estate
CNAL.L
CHIN.L
Communication Services
CNAL.L
CHIN.L
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
CNAL.L
CHIN.L
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.L | CHIN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
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.L | CHIN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest 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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -13.52% | -20.78% | +7.26% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -26.74% | -20.63% | -6.11% |
Ulcer IndexDepth 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.L | CHIN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
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.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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.
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