PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CNUA.L vs. AH50.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CNUA.L vs. AH50.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in UBS ETF (IE) MSCI China A SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (CNUA.L) and Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D (AH50.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CNUA.L is traded in GBp, while AH50.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the AH50.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNUA.L achieves a 11.84% return, which is significantly lower than AH50.L's 12.87% return.


CNUA.L

1D
-0.68%
1M
2.91%
YTD
11.84%
6M
15.17%
1Y
44.25%
3Y*
12.83%
5Y*
3.76%
10Y*

AH50.L

1D
-0.30%
1M
2.69%
YTD
12.87%
6M
16.90%
1Y
35.59%
3Y*
13.16%
5Y*
1.28%
10Y*
8.54%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CNUA.L vs. AH50.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
CNUA.L
UBS ETF (IE) MSCI China A SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc
11.84%22.98%16.55%-16.32%-15.85%10.51%38.62%
AH50.L
Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D
12.87%17.73%19.83%-17.39%-11.62%-5.13%26.43%

Correlation

The correlation between CNUA.L and AH50.L is 0.89, 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

0.89

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

0.77

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.75

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2020

0.75

The correlation between CNUA.L and AH50.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.75 (all time) to 0.89 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CNUA.L vs. AH50.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CNUA.L
AH50.L

Technology

27.2%
27.6%

Financial Services

18.8%
11.4%

Industrials

15.7%
20.4%

Basic Materials

12.4%
14.3%

Consumer Defensive

7.4%
5.3%

Consumer Cyclical

5.6%
7.5%

Healthcare

4.3%
6.1%

Energy

3.4%
2.6%

Utilities

3.2%
2.4%

Communication Services

1.4%
1.8%

Real Estate

0.6%
0.7%

Technology

CNUA.L
27.2%
AH50.L
27.6%

Financial Services

CNUA.L
18.8%
AH50.L
11.4%

Industrials

CNUA.L
15.7%
AH50.L
20.4%

Basic Materials

CNUA.L
12.4%
AH50.L
14.3%

Consumer Defensive

CNUA.L
7.4%
AH50.L
5.3%

Consumer Cyclical

CNUA.L
5.6%
AH50.L
7.5%

Healthcare

CNUA.L
4.3%
AH50.L
6.1%

Energy

CNUA.L
3.4%
AH50.L
2.6%

Utilities

CNUA.L
3.2%
AH50.L
2.4%

Communication Services

CNUA.L
1.4%
AH50.L
1.8%

Real Estate

CNUA.L
0.6%
AH50.L
0.7%

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

CNUA.L vs. AH50.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CNUA.L
CNUA.L Risk / Return Rank: 8888
Overall Rank
CNUA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNUA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8585
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNUA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8484
Omega Ratio Rank
CNUA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNUA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8989
Martin Ratio Rank

AH50.L
AH50.L Risk / Return Rank: 6363
Overall Rank
AH50.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5757
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AH50.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5454
Sortino Ratio Rank
AH50.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5656
Omega Ratio Rank
AH50.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
AH50.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
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.

CNUA.L vs. AH50.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for UBS ETF (IE) MSCI China A SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (CNUA.L) and Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D (AH50.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.


CNUA.LAH50.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.83

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.11

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.50

1.36

+0.14

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

6.63

4.56

+2.07

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

19.91

13.84

+6.07

CNUA.L vs. AH50.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNUA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.84, which is higher than the AH50.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNUA.L and AH50.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


CNUA.LAH50.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.84

2.01

+0.83

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.18

0.05

+0.12

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.37

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.41

0.36

+0.04

Drawdowns

CNUA.L vs. AH50.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNUA.L drawdown since its inception was -38.31%, smaller than the maximum AH50.L drawdown of -45.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNUA.L and AH50.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CNUA.LAH50.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-38.31%

-45.94%

+7.63%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.64%

-7.76%

+1.12%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.43%

-23.87%

+2.44%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.31%

-38.86%

+0.55%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.94%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.17%

-5.75%

+3.58%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-14.93%

-17.41%

+2.48%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.22%

2.56%

-0.34%

Volatility

CNUA.L vs. AH50.L - Volatility Comparison

UBS ETF (IE) MSCI China A SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (CNUA.L) and Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D (AH50.L) have volatilities of 5.67% and 5.89%, 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


CNUA.LAH50.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.67%

5.89%

-0.22%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.52%

12.72%

-2.20%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.52%

17.63%

-2.11%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.25%

23.39%

-2.14%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.74%

23.17%

-0.43%

CNUA.L vs. AH50.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNUA.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than AH50.L's 0.65% expense ratio.


Dividends

CNUA.L vs. AH50.L - Dividend Comparison

CNUA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while AH50.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.08%.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020
AH50.L
Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D
2.08%2.79%2.37%2.72%3.00%1.78%1.57%
CNUA.L
UBS ETF (IE) MSCI China A SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


CNUA.L and AH50.L have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CNUA.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CNUA.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AH50.L.

CNUA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while AH50.L tracks MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: UBS and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for CNUA.L and 0.65% for AH50.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CNUA.L and AH50.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