CNAL.L vs. CNSG.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

CNAL.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) and CNSG.L (UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis) are both China Equities funds - CNAL.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY while CNSG.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNAL.L returned -0.39%/yr vs -3.95%/yr for CNSG.L. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CNAL.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for CNSG.L.

Performance

CNAL.L vs. CNSG.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 UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (CNSG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNAL.L achieves a 6.41% return, which is significantly higher than CNSG.L's -6.01% 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%

CNSG.L

• 1D: 1.02%
• 1M: -2.19%
• 6M: -9.68%
• YTD: -6.01%
• 1Y: -2.56%
• 3Y*: 6.74%
• 5Y*: -3.95%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CNAL.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR	6.41%	17.54%	12.76%	-18.90%	-17.14%	4.51%	37.96%	0.83%
CNSG.L UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis	-6.01%	18.19%	20.51%	-18.51%	-12.26%	-17.41%	26.99%	-17.90%

Correlation

The correlation between CNAL.L and CNSG.L is 0.63, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.63
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.69
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2019	0.71

The correlation between CNAL.L and CNSG.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CNAL.L vs. CNSG.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

CNSG.L

CNSG.L Risk / Return Rank: 8
CNSG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
CNSG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
CNSG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7
CNSG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
CNSG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8

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. CNSG.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 UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (CNSG.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	CNSG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.51	-0.15	+1.67
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.10	-0.10	+2.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	0.99	+0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.13	-0.15	+3.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.22	-0.33	+9.56

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

The current CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.51, which is higher than the CNSG.L Sharpe Ratio of -0.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNAL.L and CNSG.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. CNSG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNAL.L drawdown since its inception was -51.00%, smaller than the maximum CNSG.L drawdown of -55.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNAL.L and CNSG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNAL.L	CNSG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.00%	-55.67%	+4.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.64%	-16.53%	+7.89%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.58%	-27.90%	+1.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-42.38%	-46.84%	+4.46%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.10%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.52%	-31.84%	+18.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.74%	-29.84%	+3.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.93%	7.68%	-4.75%

Volatility

CNAL.L vs. CNSG.L - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L) has a higher volatility of 8.67% compared to UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (CNSG.L) at 4.77%. This indicates that CNAL.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CNSG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNAL.L	CNSG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.67%	4.77%	+3.90%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.50%	11.76%	+1.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.85%	16.74%	+1.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.66%	26.86%	-5.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.03%	26.00%	-3.97%

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

CNAL.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than CNSG.L's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNAL.L vs. CNSG.L - Dividend Comparison

CNAL.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CNSG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.68%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CNAL.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
CNSG.L UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis	2.68%	2.57%	0.85%	2.00%	1.80%	1.35%	0.74%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CNAL.L and CNSG.L have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

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.

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

CNAL.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for CNSG.L.

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

CNAL.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while CNSG.L tracks MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CNAL.L and 0.45% for CNSG.L.