CNEW.L vs. LCCN.L
CNEW.L (VanEck New China UCITS ETF) and LCCN.L (Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc) are both China Equities funds - CNEW.L tracks the MarketGrader New China Screened Index while LCCN.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CNEW.L returned 1.29%/yr vs 8.66%/yr for LCCN.L. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CNEW.L charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for LCCN.L.
Performance
CNEW.L vs. LCCN.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CNEW.L achieves a -6.01% return, which is significantly higher than LCCN.L's -8.72% return.
CNEW.L
- 1D
- 2.09%
- 1M
- -1.23%
- 6M
- -10.84%
- YTD
- -6.01%
- 1Y
- 1.38%
- 3Y*
- 1.29%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
LCCN.L
- 1D
- 2.05%
- 1M
- -0.85%
- 6M
- -13.44%
- YTD
- -8.72%
- 1Y
- -0.57%
- 3Y*
- 8.66%
- 5Y*
- -4.23%
- 10Y*
- —
CNEW.L vs. LCCN.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNEW.L VanEck New China UCITS ETF | -6.01% | 23.92% | -0.36% | -9.27% | -28.05% | 6.19% |
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc | -8.72% | 31.99% | 19.37% | -11.59% | -22.21% | -5.72% |
Correlation
The correlation between CNEW.L and LCCN.L is 0.82, 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 | 0.82 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.79 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 24, 2021 | 0.78 |
The correlation between CNEW.L and LCCN.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
CNEW.L vs. LCCN.L — Risk / Return Rank
CNEW.L
LCCN.L
CNEW.L vs. LCCN.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck New China UCITS ETF (CNEW.L) and Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.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 | LCCN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.11 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.12 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.03 | 1.01 | +0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.08 | -0.03 | +0.11 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.18 | -0.05 | +0.23 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CNEW.L vs. LCCN.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CNEW.L drawdown since its inception was -46.53%, smaller than the maximum LCCN.L drawdown of -62.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNEW.L and LCCN.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CNEW.L | LCCN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -46.53% | -62.38% | +15.85% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.41% | -22.74% | +6.33% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -28.03% | -25.53% | -2.50% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -53.18% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.46% | -35.27% | +10.81% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -26.53% | -29.90% | +3.37% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.75% | 10.49% | -2.74% |
Volatility
CNEW.L vs. LCCN.L - Volatility Comparison
VanEck New China UCITS ETF (CNEW.L) and Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) have volatilities of 5.71% and 5.49%, 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
| CNEW.L | LCCN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.71% | 5.49% | +0.22% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.83% | 15.17% | -2.34% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.60% | 20.46% | -2.86% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 25.24% | 29.35% | -4.11% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.24% | 27.61% | -2.37% |
CNEW.L vs. LCCN.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CNEW.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than LCCN.L's 0.29% expense ratio.
Dividends
CNEW.L vs. LCCN.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither CNEW.L nor LCCN.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
CNEW.L and LCCN.L have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, LCCN.L is cheaper at 0.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
LCCN.L is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CNEW.L.
CNEW.L tracks MarketGrader New China Screened Index, while LCCN.L tracks MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for CNEW.L and 0.29% for LCCN.L.
Find the right allocation for CNEW.L and LCCN.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