CNAL.L vs. CNAA.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

CNAL.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) and CNAA.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) are both China Equities funds from Amundi tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CNAL.L returned 4.29%/yr vs 4.22%/yr for CNAA.L. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. Both charge a 0.35% expense ratio.

Performance

CNAL.L vs. CNAA.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 Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with CNAL.L having a 6.41% return and CNAA.L slightly lower at 6.28%. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with CNAL.L having a 4.29% annualized return and CNAA.L not far behind at 4.22%.

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%

CNAA.L

• 1D: -1.18%
• 1M: -3.60%
• 6M: 2.99%
• YTD: 6.28%
• 1Y: 26.76%
• 3Y*: 8.83%
• 5Y*: -0.50%
• 10Y*: 4.22%

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

CNAL.L vs. CNAA.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%
CNAA.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR	6.28%	17.14%	12.85%	-18.48%	-17.18%	4.19%	38.58%	31.66%	-26.27%	11.58%

Correlation

The correlation between CNAL.L and CNAA.L is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.95
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.95
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 28, 2014	0.96

The correlation between CNAL.L and CNAA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors	CNAL.L	CNAA.L
Technology	33.2%	33.2%
Industrials	17.4%	17.4%
Financial Services	16.8%	16.8%
Basic Materials	10.2%	10.2%
Consumer Defensive	6.0%	6.0%
Consumer Cyclical	4.8%	4.8%
Healthcare	3.8%	3.8%
Utilities	2.9%	2.9%
Energy	2.7%	2.7%
Real Estate	0.6%	0.6%
Communication Services	0.5%	0.5%

Return for Risk

CNAL.L vs. CNAA.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: 59
CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
CNAL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
CNAL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 52
CNAL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
CNAL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 64

CNAA.L

CNAA.L Risk / Return Rank: 60
CNAA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
CNAA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
CNAA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 51
CNAA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
CNAA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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. CNAA.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 Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.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	CNAA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.51	1.41	+0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.10	1.98	+0.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.25	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.13	3.15	-0.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.22	8.91	+0.31

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

The current CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.51, which is comparable to the CNAA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNAL.L and CNAA.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.

Drawdowns

CNAL.L vs. CNAA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNAL.L drawdown since its inception was -51.00%, roughly equal to the maximum CNAA.L drawdown of -50.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNAL.L and CNAA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNAL.L	CNAA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.00%	-50.93%	-0.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.64%	-8.46%	-0.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.58%	-26.66%	+0.08%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-42.38%	-42.50%	+0.12%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.10%	-45.04%	-0.06%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.52%	-13.63%	+0.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.74%	-25.69%	-1.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.93%	3.00%	-0.07%

Volatility

CNAL.L vs. CNAA.L - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L) and Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L) have volatilities of 8.67% and 8.76%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	CNAL.L	CNAA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.67%	8.76%	-0.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.50%	14.56%	-1.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.85%	18.88%	-1.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.66%	21.82%	-0.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.03%	22.33%	-0.30%

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

Both CNAL.L and CNAA.L have an expense ratio of 0.35%.

Dividends

CNAL.L vs. CNAA.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.96, CNAL.L and CNAA.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.

Which ETF is better, CNAL.L or CNAA.L?

Both ETFs have the same 0.35% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNAL.L or CNAA.L?

CNAL.L and CNAA.L have the same expense ratio: 0.35% per year.

What is the main difference between CNAL.L and CNAA.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY.