CNSG.L vs. LCCN.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CNSG.L (UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis) and LCCN.L (Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China NR USD, from UBS and Amundi respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNSG.L returned -5.51%/yr vs -3.86%/yr for LCCN.L. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CNSG.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for LCCN.L.

Performance

CNSG.L vs. LCCN.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 MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNSG.L achieves a -4.82% return, which is significantly higher than LCCN.L's -6.66% return.

CNSG.L

• 1D: -1.91%
• 1M: -0.52%
• YTD: -4.82%
• 6M: -6.30%
• 1Y: 3.32%
• 3Y*: 4.77%
• 5Y*: -5.51%
• 10Y*: —

LCCN.L

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: -1.74%
• YTD: -6.66%
• 6M: -9.04%
• 1Y: 6.01%
• 3Y*: 8.23%
• 5Y*: -3.86%
• 10Y*: —

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

CNSG.L vs. LCCN.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	-4.82%	15.02%	19.26%	-19.78%	-13.48%	-18.60%	25.87%	2.75%
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc	-6.66%	22.63%	21.46%	-16.03%	-12.96%	-21.13%	25.98%	7.65%

Correlation

The correlation between CNSG.L and LCCN.L is 0.94, 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	0.94
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.93
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 9, 2019	0.92

The correlation between CNSG.L and LCCN.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CNSG.L vs. LCCN.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: 13
CNSG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
CNSG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
CNSG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 13
CNSG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
CNSG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 13

LCCN.L

LCCN.L Risk / Return Rank: 13
LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
LCCN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
LCCN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 13
LCCN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
LCCN.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.

CNSG.L vs. LCCN.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 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.

	CNSG.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.29	0.31	-0.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.50	0.57	-0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.07	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.34	0.35	-0.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.73	0.74	-0.02
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current CNSG.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.29, which is comparable to the LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNSG.L and LCCN.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

	CNSG.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.29	0.31	-0.02
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.21	-0.14	-0.07
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.03	0.09	-0.12

Drawdowns

CNSG.L vs. LCCN.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNSG.L drawdown since its inception was -57.38%, roughly equal to the maximum LCCN.L drawdown of -56.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNSG.L and LCCN.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNSG.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-57.38%	-56.30%	-1.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.08%	-17.02%	+2.94%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.72%	-24.76%	-2.96%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-51.82%	-49.10%	-2.72%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-36.10%	-31.69%	-4.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.15%	-27.00%	-3.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.56%	8.07%	-1.51%

Volatility

CNSG.L vs. LCCN.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 6.07%, while Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) has a volatility of 7.53%. This indicates that CNSG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LCCN.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNSG.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.07%	7.53%	-1.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.61%	14.15%	-2.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.73%	19.53%	-2.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.90%	28.03%	-1.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.84%	26.94%	-1.10%

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

CNSG.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than LCCN.L's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNSG.L vs. LCCN.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CNSG.L nor LCCN.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.94, CNSG.L and LCCN.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

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

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.

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

LCCN.L is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for CNSG.L.

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

Both ETFs track MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: UBS and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for CNSG.L and 0.29% for LCCN.L.