CNSG.L vs. CNAL.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

CNSG.L (UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis) and CNAL.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) are both China Equities funds - CNSG.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD while CNAL.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNSG.L returned -3.95%/yr vs -0.39%/yr for CNAL.L. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CNSG.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for CNAL.L.

Performance

CNSG.L vs. CNAL.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (CNSG.L) and Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNSG.L achieves a -6.01% return, which is significantly lower than CNAL.L's 6.41% return.

CNSG.L

• 1D: 1.02%
• 1M: -2.19%
• 6M: -9.68%
• YTD: -6.01%
• 1Y: -2.56%
• 3Y*: 6.74%
• 5Y*: -3.95%
• 10Y*: —

CNAL.L

• 1D: -0.84%
• 1M: -3.11%
• 6M: 3.34%
• YTD: 6.41%
• 1Y: 27.12%
• 3Y*: 9.00%
• 5Y*: -0.39%
• 10Y*: 4.29%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CNSG.L UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis	-6.01%	18.19%	20.51%	-18.51%	-12.26%	-17.41%	26.99%	-17.90%
CNAL.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR	6.41%	17.54%	12.76%	-18.90%	-17.14%	4.51%	37.96%	0.83%

Correlation

The correlation between CNSG.L and CNAL.L is 0.63, 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	0.63
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.69
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2019	0.71

The correlation between CNSG.L and CNAL.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CNSG.L vs. CNAL.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CNSG.L

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

CNAL.L

CNAL.L Risk / Return Rank: 59
CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
CNAL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
CNAL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 52
CNAL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
CNAL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 64

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.

CNSG.L vs. CNAL.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (CNSG.L) and Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.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.

	CNSG.L	CNAL.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.15	1.51	-1.67
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.10	2.10	-2.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	1.27	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.15	3.13	-3.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.33	9.22	-9.56

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

The current CNSG.L Sharpe Ratio is -0.15, which is lower than the CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNSG.L and CNAL.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

CNSG.L vs. CNAL.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNSG.L drawdown since its inception was -55.67%, which is greater than CNAL.L's maximum drawdown of -51.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNSG.L and CNAL.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNSG.L	CNAL.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-55.67%	-51.00%	-4.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.53%	-8.64%	-7.89%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.90%	-26.58%	-1.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-46.84%	-42.38%	-4.46%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-45.10%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-31.84%	-13.52%	-18.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.84%	-26.74%	-3.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.68%	2.93%	+4.75%

Volatility

CNSG.L vs. CNAL.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (CNSG.L) is 4.77%, while Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L) has a volatility of 8.67%. This indicates that CNSG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNAL.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNSG.L	CNAL.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.77%	8.67%	-3.90%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.76%	13.50%	-1.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.74%	17.85%	-1.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.86%	21.66%	+5.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.00%	22.03%	+3.97%

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

CNSG.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than CNAL.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNSG.L vs. CNAL.L - Dividend Comparison

CNSG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.68%, while CNAL.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CNAL.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
CNSG.L UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis	2.68%	2.57%	0.85%	2.00%	1.80%	1.35%	0.74%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CNSG.L and CNAL.L have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CNSG.L or CNAL.L?

On fees, CNAL.L is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNSG.L or CNAL.L?

CNAL.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for CNSG.L.

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

CNSG.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while CNAL.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: UBS and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for CNSG.L and 0.35% for CNAL.L.