CNAL.L vs. CSH2.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CNAL.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) and CSH2.L (Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP) are both exchange-traded funds - CNAL.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while CSH2.L is a Money Market fund actively managed by Amundi. CNAL.L is passively managed, while CSH2.L is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNAL.L returned 0.10%/yr vs 3.65%/yr for CSH2.L. At a 0.00 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CNAL.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for CSH2.L.

Performance

CNAL.L vs. CSH2.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 Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP (CSH2.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 9.67% return, which is significantly higher than CSH2.L's 1.71% return.

CNAL.L

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: 3.12%
• YTD: 9.67%
• 6M: 13.01%
• 1Y: 39.01%
• 3Y*: 8.19%
• 5Y*: 0.10%
• 10Y*: —

CSH2.L

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 0.35%
• YTD: 1.71%
• 6M: 2.09%
• 1Y: 4.37%
• 3Y*: 4.99%
• 5Y*: 3.65%
• 10Y*: 2.07%

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

CNAL.L vs. CSH2.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CNAL.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR	9.67%	16.96%	16.16%	-18.82%	-20.03%	8.27%	35.63%	30.64%	-23.83%
CSH2.L Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP	1.71%	4.67%	5.61%	4.72%	1.54%	0.13%	0.30%	0.82%	0.47%

Correlation

The correlation between CNAL.L and CSH2.L is -0.02, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.02
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.02
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.02
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 18, 2018	0.00

CNAL.L vs. CSH2.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CNAL.L	CSH2.L
Technology	27.2%	35.9%
Financial Services	18.8%	10.4%
Industrials	15.7%	6.3%
Basic Materials	12.4%	1.0%
Consumer Defensive	7.4%	4.9%
Consumer Cyclical	5.6%	13.9%
Healthcare	4.3%	11.3%
Energy	3.4%	1.4%
Utilities	3.2%	1.1%
Communication Services	1.4%	13.9%
Real Estate	0.6%	0.0%

Return for Risk

CNAL.L vs. CSH2.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: 80
CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
CNAL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
CNAL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 75
CNAL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
CNAL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 81

CSH2.L

CSH2.L Risk / Return Rank: 99
CSH2.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
CSH2.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
CSH2.L Omega Ratio Rank: 99
CSH2.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
CSH2.L Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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. CSH2.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 Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP (CSH2.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.

	CNAL.L	CSH2.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.51	8.04	-5.53
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.35	15.04	-11.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	4.37	-2.92
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.62	27.61	-22.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.97	158.77	-142.80
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CNAL.L vs. CSH2.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.51, which is lower than the CSH2.L Sharpe Ratio of 8.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNAL.L and CSH2.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CNAL.L	CSH2.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.51	8.04	-5.53
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.01	6.48	-6.47
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	4.68	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.34	4.61	-4.28

Drawdowns

CNAL.L vs. CSH2.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNAL.L drawdown since its inception was -44.83%, which is greater than CSH2.L's maximum drawdown of -0.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNAL.L and CSH2.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNAL.L	CSH2.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.83%	-0.37%	-44.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.91%	-0.16%	-6.75%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.58%	-0.29%	-26.29%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-42.19%	-0.29%	-41.90%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-0.37%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.69%	0.00%	-10.69%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-21.41%	-0.00%	-21.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.44%	0.03%	+2.41%

Volatility

CNAL.L vs. CSH2.L - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L) has a higher volatility of 5.46% compared to Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP (CSH2.L) at 0.08%. This indicates that CNAL.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSH2.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNAL.L	CSH2.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.46%	0.08%	+5.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.60%	0.25%	+10.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.54%	0.54%	+15.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	31.36%	0.56%	+30.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	40.10%	0.44%	+39.66%

CNAL.L vs. CSH2.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNAL.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than CSH2.L's 0.07% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNAL.L vs. CSH2.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CNAL.L nor CSH2.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNAL.L and CSH2.L in my portfolio?

CNAL.L and CSH2.L have a correlation of -0.02, 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 CSH2.L?

On fees, CSH2.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNAL.L or CSH2.L?

CSH2.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CNAL.L.

What is the main difference between CNAL.L and CSH2.L?

CNAL.L is categorized as China Equities, while CSH2.L is Money Market. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CNAL.L and 0.07% for CSH2.L.