PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CNEG.L vs. XCNA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CNEG.L vs. XCNA.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 Xtrackers MSCI China A ESG Screened Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCNA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CNEG.L is traded in GBp, while XCNA.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the XCNA.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNEG.L achieves a -8.89% return, which is significantly lower than XCNA.L's 11.42% return.


CNEG.L

1D
-0.38%
1M
-0.44%
YTD
-8.89%
6M
-10.31%
1Y
3.32%
3Y*
4.28%
5Y*
10Y*

XCNA.L

1D
-0.86%
1M
1.94%
YTD
11.42%
6M
14.86%
1Y
43.51%
3Y*
12.43%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
CNEG.L
Amundi MSCI China ESG Leaders Select UCITS ETF DR (C)
-8.89%23.90%11.58%-14.99%-11.04%
XCNA.L
Xtrackers MSCI China A ESG Screened Swap UCITS ETF 1C
11.42%23.10%16.47%-16.84%13.29%

Correlation

The correlation between CNEG.L and XCNA.L is 0.51, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.51

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.65

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2022

0.65

The correlation between CNEG.L and XCNA.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.51 (1 year) to 0.65 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

CNEG.L vs. XCNA.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: 1111
Overall Rank
CNEG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1111
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNEG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1111
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNEG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
CNEG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1111
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNEG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1010
Martin Ratio Rank

XCNA.L
XCNA.L Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
XCNA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8080
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XCNA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
XCNA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7777
Omega Ratio Rank
XCNA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
XCNA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8989
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.

CNEG.L vs. XCNA.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 Xtrackers MSCI China A ESG Screened Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCNA.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.LXCNA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.50

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-3.12

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.04

1.47

-0.43

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.16

7.22

-7.06

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.32

19.45

-19.13

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

The current CNEG.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.16, which is lower than the XCNA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNEG.L and XCNA.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


CNEG.LXCNA.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.16

2.67

-2.50

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.16

0.46

-0.62

Drawdowns

CNEG.L vs. XCNA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNEG.L drawdown since its inception was -46.55%, which is greater than XCNA.L's maximum drawdown of -35.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNEG.L and XCNA.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CNEG.LXCNA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-46.55%

-35.26%

-11.29%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-20.54%

-6.00%

-14.54%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.84%

-25.63%

-1.21%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-22.79%

-2.34%

-20.45%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-26.63%

-15.68%

-10.95%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

10.43%

2.23%

+8.20%

Volatility

CNEG.L vs. XCNA.L - Volatility Comparison

Amundi MSCI China ESG Leaders Select UCITS ETF DR (C) (CNEG.L) has a higher volatility of 7.88% compared to Xtrackers MSCI China A ESG Screened Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCNA.L) at 5.62%. This indicates that CNEG.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XCNA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CNEG.LXCNA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.88%

5.62%

+2.26%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.68%

11.32%

+3.36%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.42%

16.26%

+4.16%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

31.48%

23.57%

+7.91%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

31.48%

23.57%

+7.91%

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

CNEG.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than XCNA.L's 0.29% expense ratio.


Dividends

CNEG.L vs. XCNA.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CNEG.L nor XCNA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


CNEG.L and XCNA.L have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XCNA.L is cheaper at 0.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XCNA.L is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CNEG.L.

CNEG.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while XCNA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and DWS. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CNEG.L and 0.29% for XCNA.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CNEG.L and XCNA.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