CNUA.L vs. CNAL.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CNUA.L (UBS ETF (IE) MSCI China A SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc) and CNAL.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, from UBS and Amundi respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNUA.L returned 3.76%/yr vs -0.03%/yr for CNAL.L. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CNUA.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for CNAL.L.

Performance

CNUA.L vs. CNAL.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 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, CNUA.L achieves a 11.84% return, which is significantly higher than CNAL.L's 8.97% return.

CNUA.L

• 1D: -0.68%
• 1M: 1.16%
• YTD: 11.84%
• 6M: 13.82%
• 1Y: 43.54%
• 3Y*: 12.83%
• 5Y*: 3.76%
• 10Y*: —

CNAL.L

• 1D: -0.64%
• 1M: 2.13%
• YTD: 8.97%
• 6M: 12.11%
• 1Y: 37.56%
• 3Y*: 7.96%
• 5Y*: -0.03%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
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%
CNAL.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR	8.97%	16.96%	16.16%	-18.82%	-20.03%	8.27%	47.70%

Correlation

The correlation between CNUA.L and CNAL.L is 0.99 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.99
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2020	0.41

Over the past year, CNUA.L and CNAL.L have become more correlated (0.99) than their long-term average of 0.41, meaning their price movements have been converging.

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

Sectors	CNUA.L	CNAL.L
Technology	27.2%	27.2%
Financial Services	18.8%	18.8%
Industrials	15.7%	15.7%
Basic Materials	12.4%	12.4%
Consumer Defensive	7.4%	7.4%
Consumer Cyclical	5.6%	5.6%
Healthcare	4.3%	4.3%
Energy	3.4%	3.4%
Utilities	3.2%	3.2%
Communication Services	1.4%	1.4%
Real Estate	0.6%	0.6%

Return for Risk

CNUA.L vs. CNAL.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: 88
CNUA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
CNUA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
CNUA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 84
CNUA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
CNUA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 89

CNAL.L

CNAL.L Risk / Return Rank: 78
CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
CNAL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
CNAL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 73
CNAL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
CNAL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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. CNAL.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 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.

	CNUA.L	CNAL.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.84	2.41	+0.43
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.77	3.24	+0.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.43	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.63	5.41	+1.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.91	15.33	+4.57
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current CNUA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.84, which is comparable to the CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNUA.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CNUA.L	CNAL.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.84	2.41	+0.43
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.18	-0.00	+0.18
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.41	0.33	+0.08

Drawdowns

CNUA.L vs. CNAL.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNUA.L drawdown since its inception was -38.31%, smaller than the maximum CNAL.L drawdown of -44.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNUA.L and CNAL.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNUA.L	CNAL.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.31%	-44.83%	+6.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.64%	-6.91%	+0.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.43%	-26.58%	+5.15%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.31%	-42.19%	+3.88%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.17%	-11.26%	+9.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.93%	-21.39%	+6.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.22%	2.44%	-0.22%

Volatility

CNUA.L vs. CNAL.L - Volatility Comparison

UBS ETF (IE) MSCI China A SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (CNUA.L) and Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L) have volatilities of 5.67% and 5.51%, 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

	CNUA.L	CNAL.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.67%	5.51%	+0.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.52%	10.58%	-0.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.52%	15.52%	0.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.25%	31.33%	-10.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.74%	40.07%	-17.33%

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

CNUA.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than CNAL.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNUA.L vs. CNAL.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CNUA.L nor CNAL.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.99, CNUA.L and CNAL.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, CNUA.L or CNAL.L?

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.

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

CNUA.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CNAL.L.

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

Both ETFs track MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: UBS and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for CNUA.L and 0.35% for CNAL.L.