CNEW.L vs. HMCH.L

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

CNEW.L (VanEck New China UCITS ETF) and HMCH.L (HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds - CNEW.L tracks the MarketGrader New China Screened Index while HMCH.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CNEW.L returned 0.83%/yr vs 8.13%/yr for HMCH.L. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CNEW.L charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for HMCH.L.

Performance

CNEW.L vs. HMCH.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck New China UCITS ETF (CNEW.L) and HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCH.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNEW.L achieves a -9.04% return, which is significantly higher than HMCH.L's -11.87% return.

CNEW.L

• 1D: -3.53%
• 1M: -3.05%
• 6M: -12.80%
• YTD: -9.04%
• 1Y: -3.64%
• 3Y*: 0.83%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

HMCH.L

• 1D: -2.67%
• 1M: -0.94%
• 6M: -14.41%
• YTD: -11.87%
• 1Y: -4.89%
• 3Y*: 8.13%
• 5Y*: -5.06%
• 10Y*: 4.00%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CNEW.L VanEck New China UCITS ETF	-9.04%	23.92%	-0.36%	-9.27%	-28.05%	6.19%
HMCH.L HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF	-11.87%	32.14%	18.72%	-11.92%	-22.66%	-5.43%

Correlation

The correlation between CNEW.L and HMCH.L is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 24, 2021	0.78

The correlation between CNEW.L and HMCH.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

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

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

CNEW.L

CNEW.L Risk / Return Rank: 8
CNEW.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
CNEW.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
CNEW.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8
CNEW.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
CNEW.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8

HMCH.L

HMCH.L Risk / Return Rank: 7
HMCH.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
HMCH.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
HMCH.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7
HMCH.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
HMCH.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck New China UCITS ETF (CNEW.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.

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.

	CNEW.L	HMCH.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.20	-0.24	+0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.16	-0.21	+0.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.98	0.98	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.22	-0.21	-0.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.46	-0.45	-0.01

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

The current CNEW.L Sharpe Ratio is -0.20, which is comparable to the HMCH.L Sharpe Ratio of -0.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNEW.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.

Drawdowns

CNEW.L vs. HMCH.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNEW.L drawdown since its inception was -46.53%, smaller than the maximum HMCH.L drawdown of -62.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNEW.L and HMCH.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNEW.L	HMCH.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-46.53%	-62.58%	+16.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.41%	-23.25%	+6.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.03%	-25.44%	-2.59%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-53.18%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-62.58%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-26.90%	-38.05%	+11.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.52%	-23.96%	-2.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.86%	10.78%	-2.92%

Volatility

CNEW.L vs. HMCH.L - Volatility Comparison

VanEck New China UCITS ETF (CNEW.L) and HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCH.L) have volatilities of 6.75% and 6.75%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	CNEW.L	HMCH.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.75%	6.75%	0.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.18%	14.98%	-1.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.94%	20.19%	-2.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.27%	29.49%	-4.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.27%	26.27%	-1.00%

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

CNEW.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than HMCH.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNEW.L vs. HMCH.L - Dividend Comparison

CNEW.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while HMCH.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.26%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CNEW.L VanEck New China UCITS ETF	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	2.26%	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 CNEW.L and HMCH.L in my portfolio?

CNEW.L and HMCH.L have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

HMCH.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CNEW.L.

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

CNEW.L tracks MarketGrader New China Screened Index, while HMCH.L tracks MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and HSBC. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for CNEW.L and 0.30% for HMCH.L.