PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CNAL.L vs. HMCA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CNAL.L vs. HMCA.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 HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

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

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


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
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

27.2%
32.1%

Financial Services

18.8%
17.5%

Industrials

15.7%
15.4%

Basic Materials

12.4%
11.2%

Consumer Defensive

7.4%
6.6%

Consumer Cyclical

5.6%
5.2%

Healthcare

4.3%
3.8%

Energy

3.4%
3.2%

Utilities

3.2%
3.3%

Communication Services

1.4%
1.3%

Real Estate

0.6%
0.5%

Technology

CNAL.L
27.2%
HMCA.L
32.1%

Financial Services

CNAL.L
18.8%
HMCA.L
17.5%

Industrials

CNAL.L
15.7%
HMCA.L
15.4%

Basic Materials

CNAL.L
12.4%
HMCA.L
11.2%

Consumer Defensive

CNAL.L
7.4%
HMCA.L
6.6%

Consumer Cyclical

CNAL.L
5.6%
HMCA.L
5.2%

Healthcare

CNAL.L
4.3%
HMCA.L
3.8%

Energy

CNAL.L
3.4%
HMCA.L
3.2%

Utilities

CNAL.L
3.2%
HMCA.L
3.3%

Communication Services

CNAL.L
1.4%
HMCA.L
1.3%

Real Estate

CNAL.L
0.6%
HMCA.L
0.5%

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CNAL.L
CNAL.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNAL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNAL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
CNAL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNAL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank

HMCA.L
HMCA.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank
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. 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.LHMCA.LDifference
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

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

The current CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.41, which is comparable to the HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNAL.L and HMCA.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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CNAL.LHMCA.LDifference

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.LHMCA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest 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 Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-11.26%

-10.21%

-1.05%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-21.39%

-17.96%

-3.43%

Ulcer Index

Depth 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.LHMCA.LDifference

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%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
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.

Portfolio Optimizer

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