CNAL.L vs. MCHS.L

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

CNAL.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) and MCHS.L (Invesco MSCI China All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc) are both China Equities funds - CNAL.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY while MCHS.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNAL.L returned 0.80%/yr vs -3.52%/yr for MCHS.L. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.35% expense ratio.

Performance

CNAL.L vs. MCHS.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 Invesco MSCI China All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc (MCHS.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 13.91% return, which is significantly higher than MCHS.L's -3.16% return.

CNAL.L

• 1D: 1.52%
• 1M: 3.45%
• YTD: 13.91%
• 6M: 14.81%
• 1Y: 40.49%
• 3Y*: 12.02%
• 5Y*: 0.80%
• 10Y*: 5.75%

MCHS.L

• 1D: -0.88%
• 1M: -2.01%
• YTD: -3.16%
• 6M: -2.75%
• 1Y: 11.34%
• 3Y*: 8.38%
• 5Y*: -3.52%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CNAL.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR	13.91%	17.54%	12.76%	-18.90%	-17.14%	4.08%
MCHS.L Invesco MSCI China All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc	-3.16%	19.38%	18.84%	-17.54%	-15.03%	5,855.28%

Correlation

The correlation between CNAL.L and MCHS.L is 0.80, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.80
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.81
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 1, 2021	0.83

The correlation between CNAL.L and MCHS.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors	CNAL.L	MCHS.L
Technology	33.2%	20.2%
Financial Services	17.9%	19.0%
Industrials	14.8%	9.2%
Basic Materials	11.6%	7.6%
Consumer Defensive	6.2%	4.4%
Consumer Cyclical	4.8%	16.4%
Healthcare	3.7%	4.4%
Utilities	3.2%	2.4%
Energy	3.0%	3.4%
Communication Services	1.2%	11.9%
Real Estate	0.5%	1.2%

Return for Risk

CNAL.L vs. MCHS.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: 86
CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
CNAL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
CNAL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 82
CNAL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
CNAL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 85

MCHS.L

MCHS.L Risk / Return Rank: 20
MCHS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
MCHS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
MCHS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 19
MCHS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
MCHS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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. MCHS.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 Invesco MSCI China All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc (MCHS.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	MCHS.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.46	0.68	+1.78
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.28	1.04	+2.24
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.13	+0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.83	0.94	+4.89
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.58	2.06	+13.52

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

The current CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.46, which is higher than the MCHS.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNAL.L and MCHS.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. MCHS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNAL.L drawdown since its inception was -51.00%, which is greater than MCHS.L's maximum drawdown of -47.34%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNAL.L and MCHS.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNAL.L	MCHS.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.00%	-47.34%	-3.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.91%	-12.03%	+5.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.58%	-31.98%	+5.40%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-42.38%	-45.71%	+3.33%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.10%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.42%	-19.65%	+12.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.81%	-25.98%	-0.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.59%	5.50%	-2.91%

Volatility

CNAL.L vs. MCHS.L - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L) has a higher volatility of 6.16% compared to Invesco MSCI China All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc (MCHS.L) at 5.63%. This indicates that CNAL.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MCHS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNAL.L	MCHS.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.16%	5.63%	+0.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.48%	11.46%	+0.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.40%	16.52%	-0.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.50%	27.72%	-6.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.94%	3,095.70%	-3,073.76%

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

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

Dividends

CNAL.L vs. MCHS.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CNAL.L and MCHS.L have a correlation of 0.80, 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 MCHS.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 MCHS.L?

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

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

CNAL.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while MCHS.L tracks MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and Invesco.