CNEG.L vs. HMCH.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CNEG.L (Amundi MSCI China ESG Leaders Select UCITS ETF DR (C)) and HMCH.L (HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China NR USD, from Amundi and HSBC respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CNEG.L returned 4.28%/yr vs 7.83%/yr for HMCH.L. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CNEG.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for HMCH.L.

Performance

CNEG.L vs. HMCH.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Amundi MSCI China ESG Leaders Select UCITS ETF DR (C) (CNEG.L) and HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCH.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNEG.L achieves a -8.89% return, which is significantly lower than HMCH.L's -7.28% return.

CNEG.L

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: -2.35%
• YTD: -8.89%
• 6M: -11.45%
• 1Y: 2.65%
• 3Y*: 4.28%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

HMCH.L

• 1D: -0.65%
• 1M: -3.34%
• YTD: -7.28%
• 6M: -9.96%
• 1Y: 5.34%
• 3Y*: 7.83%
• 5Y*: -4.14%
• 10Y*: 5.59%

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

CNEG.L vs. HMCH.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CNEG.L Amundi MSCI China ESG Leaders Select UCITS ETF DR (C)	-8.89%	23.90%	11.58%	-14.99%	-20.05%	-6.75%
HMCH.L HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF	-7.28%	22.87%	20.73%	-16.33%	-13.40%	-7.62%

Correlation

The correlation between CNEG.L and HMCH.L is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 11, 2021	0.89

The correlation between CNEG.L and HMCH.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CNEG.L vs. HMCH.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CNEG.L

CNEG.L Risk / Return Rank: 11
CNEG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
CNEG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
CNEG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 11
CNEG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
CNEG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 10

HMCH.L

HMCH.L Risk / Return Rank: 13
HMCH.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
HMCH.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
HMCH.L Omega Ratio Rank: 14
HMCH.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
HMCH.L Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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.

CNEG.L vs. HMCH.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi MSCI China ESG Leaders Select UCITS ETF DR (C) (CNEG.L) and HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCH.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.

	CNEG.L	HMCH.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.16	0.32	-0.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.38	0.57	-0.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.04	1.07	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.16	0.34	-0.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.32	0.71	-0.39
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CNEG.L vs. HMCH.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNEG.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.16, which is lower than the HMCH.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNEG.L and HMCH.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

	CNEG.L	HMCH.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.16	0.32	-0.15
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.15	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.22	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.16	0.16	-0.32

Drawdowns

CNEG.L vs. HMCH.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNEG.L drawdown since its inception was -46.55%, smaller than the maximum HMCH.L drawdown of -56.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNEG.L and HMCH.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNEG.L	HMCH.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-46.55%	-56.50%	+9.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.54%	-17.18%	-3.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.84%	-24.67%	-2.17%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-49.31%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-56.50%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.79%	-32.69%	+9.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.63%	-20.25%	-6.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.43%	8.17%	+2.26%

Volatility

CNEG.L vs. HMCH.L - Volatility Comparison

Amundi MSCI China ESG Leaders Select UCITS ETF DR (C) (CNEG.L) has a higher volatility of 7.88% compared to HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCH.L) at 7.06%. This indicates that CNEG.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HMCH.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNEG.L	HMCH.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.88%	7.06%	+0.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.68%	13.14%	+1.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.42%	18.44%	+1.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	31.48%	27.67%	+3.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.48%	25.21%	+6.27%

CNEG.L vs. HMCH.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNEG.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than HMCH.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNEG.L vs. HMCH.L - Dividend Comparison

CNEG.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while HMCH.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.15%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CNEG.L Amundi MSCI China ESG Leaders Select UCITS ETF DR (C)	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
HMCH.L HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF	2.15%	2.34%	2.17%	2.12%	1.85%	1.28%	0.92%	1.65%	1.36%	0.78%	1.89%	2.84%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNEG.L and HMCH.L in my portfolio?

CNEG.L and HMCH.L have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CNEG.L or HMCH.L?

On fees, HMCH.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNEG.L or HMCH.L?

HMCH.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CNEG.L.

What is the main difference between CNEG.L and HMCH.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and HSBC. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CNEG.L and 0.30% for HMCH.L.