CNAL.L vs. HMCA.L
CNAL.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) and HMCA.L (HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, from Amundi and HSBC respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNAL.L returned -0.03%/yr vs 0.05%/yr for HMCA.L. At a 0.38 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CNAL.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for HMCA.L.
Performance
CNAL.L vs. HMCA.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
CNAL.L is traded in GBp, while HMCA.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the HMCA.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 8.97% return and HMCA.L slightly lower at 8.77%.
CNAL.L
- 1D
- -0.64%
- 1M
- 2.13%
- YTD
- 8.97%
- 6M
- 12.11%
- 1Y
- 37.56%
- 3Y*
- 7.96%
- 5Y*
- -0.03%
- 10Y*
- —
HMCA.L
- 1D
- -0.53%
- 1M
- 1.89%
- YTD
- 8.77%
- 6M
- 11.73%
- 1Y
- 37.20%
- 3Y*
- 8.50%
- 5Y*
- 0.05%
- 10Y*
- —
CNAL.L vs. HMCA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNAL.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR | 8.97% | 16.96% | 16.16% | -18.82% | -20.03% | 8.27% | 35.63% | 30.64% | -12.53% |
HMCA.L HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF | 8.77% | 17.38% | 13.48% | -18.58% | -17.12% | 4.17% | 39.06% | 30.18% | -12.02% |
Correlation
The correlation between CNAL.L and HMCA.L is 0.98 - 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 | 0.98 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.62 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.49 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 30, 2018 | 0.38 |
Over the past year, CNAL.L and HMCA.L have become more correlated (0.98) than their long-term average of 0.38, meaning their price movements have been converging.
CNAL.L vs. HMCA.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CNAL.L
HMCA.L
Technology
Financial Services
Industrials
Basic Materials
Consumer Defensive
Consumer Cyclical
Healthcare
Energy
Utilities
Communication Services
Real Estate
Technology
CNAL.L
HMCA.L
Financial Services
CNAL.L
HMCA.L
Industrials
CNAL.L
HMCA.L
Basic Materials
CNAL.L
HMCA.L
Consumer Defensive
CNAL.L
HMCA.L
Consumer Cyclical
CNAL.L
HMCA.L
Healthcare
CNAL.L
HMCA.L
Energy
CNAL.L
HMCA.L
Utilities
CNAL.L
HMCA.L
Communication Services
CNAL.L
HMCA.L
Real Estate
CNAL.L
HMCA.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. HMCA.L — Risk / Return Rank
CNAL.L
HMCA.L
CNAL.L vs. HMCA.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 HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.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 | HMCA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.01 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.02 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.43 | 1.43 | 0.00 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.41 | 5.29 | +0.12 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 15.33 | 15.02 | +0.31 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CNAL.L | HMCA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.41 | 2.42 | -0.01 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.33 | 0.28 | +0.05 |
Drawdowns
CNAL.L vs. HMCA.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CNAL.L drawdown since its inception was -44.83%, roughly equal to the maximum HMCA.L drawdown of -44.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNAL.L and HMCA.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CNAL.L | HMCA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -44.83% | -44.23% | -0.60% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.91% | -7.00% | +0.09% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -26.58% | -26.19% | -0.39% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -42.19% | -41.62% | -0.57% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -11.26% | -10.21% | -1.05% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -21.39% | -17.96% | -3.43% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.44% | 2.47% | -0.03% |
Volatility
CNAL.L vs. HMCA.L - Volatility Comparison
Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L) and HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L) have volatilities of 5.51% and 5.46%, 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CNAL.L | HMCA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.51% | 5.46% | +0.05% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.58% | 10.35% | +0.23% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.52% | 15.33% | +0.19% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 31.33% | 21.22% | +10.11% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 40.07% | 22.88% | +17.19% |
CNAL.L vs. HMCA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CNAL.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than HMCA.L's 0.30% expense ratio.
Dividends
CNAL.L vs. HMCA.L - Dividend Comparison
CNAL.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while HMCA.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.68%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% | 0.00% |
HMCA.L HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF | 1.68% | 1.76% | 1.97% | 2.20% | 1.76% | 1.09% | 0.88% | 1.78% | 0.29% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.98, CNAL.L and HMCA.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.
On fees, HMCA.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
HMCA.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CNAL.L.
Both ETFs track MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and HSBC. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CNAL.L and 0.30% for HMCA.L.
Find the right allocation for CNAL.L and HMCA.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