DAGB.L vs. LCJP.L

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

DAGB.L (VanEck Digital Assets Equity UCITS ETF A USD Acc) and LCJP.L (Amundi MSCI Japan UCITS ETF Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - DAGB.L is a Technology Equities fund tracking the MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD, while LCJP.L is a Japan Equities fund tracking the TOPIX TR JPY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, DAGB.L returned -1.92%/yr vs 10.41%/yr for LCJP.L. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. DAGB.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for LCJP.L.

Performance

DAGB.L vs. LCJP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in VanEck Digital Assets Equity UCITS ETF A USD Acc (DAGB.L) and Amundi MSCI Japan UCITS ETF Acc (LCJP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DAGB.L achieves a 9.73% return, which is significantly lower than LCJP.L's 18.20% return.

DAGB.L

• 1D: -0.62%
• 1M: -14.76%
• 6M: -7.52%
• YTD: 9.73%
• 1Y: 1.27%
• 3Y*: 23.67%
• 5Y*: -1.92%
• 10Y*: —

LCJP.L

• 1D: 1.14%
• 1M: 2.46%
• 6M: 12.88%
• YTD: 18.20%
• 1Y: 37.00%
• 3Y*: 17.57%
• 5Y*: 10.41%
• 10Y*: —

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

DAGB.L vs. LCJP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
DAGB.L VanEck Digital Assets Equity UCITS ETF A USD Acc	9.73%	2.70%	31.12%	326.16%	-85.21%	-24.14%
LCJP.L Amundi MSCI Japan UCITS ETF Acc	18.20%	17.56%	8.90%	14.09%	-7.13%	3.10%

Correlation

The correlation between DAGB.L and LCJP.L is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.30
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 6, 2021	0.30

The correlation between DAGB.L and LCJP.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.30 (3 years) to 0.41 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

DAGB.L vs. LCJP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DAGB.L	LCJP.L
Financial Services	61.3%	17.4%
Technology	35.8%	21.1%
Consumer Cyclical	2.9%	12.1%
Basic Materials	-	3.0%
Communication Services	-	8.9%
Consumer Defensive	-	3.5%
Energy	-	0.9%
Healthcare	-	5.8%
Industrials	-	24.4%
Real Estate	-	1.9%
Utilities	-	1.0%

Return for Risk

DAGB.L vs. LCJP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

DAGB.L

DAGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 11
DAGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
DAGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
DAGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 12
DAGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
DAGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 10

LCJP.L

LCJP.L Risk / Return Rank: 75
LCJP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
LCJP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
LCJP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 74
LCJP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
LCJP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

DAGB.L vs. LCJP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Digital Assets Equity UCITS ETF A USD Acc (DAGB.L) and Amundi MSCI Japan UCITS ETF Acc (LCJP.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.

	DAGB.L	LCJP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.02	1.87	-1.85
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.46	2.60	-2.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.05	1.34	-0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.03	3.46	-3.43
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.05	10.58	-10.53

DAGB.L vs. LCJP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DAGB.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.02, which is lower than the LCJP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DAGB.L and LCJP.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

DAGB.L vs. LCJP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DAGB.L drawdown since its inception was -91.23%, smaller than the maximum LCJP.L drawdown of -99.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DAGB.L and LCJP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	DAGB.L	LCJP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-91.23%	-99.46%	+8.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-45.63%	-10.64%	-34.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-58.48%	-14.59%	-43.89%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-91.23%	-18.58%	-72.65%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-43.57%	-98.70%	+55.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-57.11%	-98.44%	+41.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	26.66%	3.49%	+23.17%

Volatility

DAGB.L vs. LCJP.L - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Digital Assets Equity UCITS ETF A USD Acc (DAGB.L) has a higher volatility of 12.76% compared to Amundi MSCI Japan UCITS ETF Acc (LCJP.L) at 6.59%. This indicates that DAGB.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LCJP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DAGB.L	LCJP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.76%	6.59%	+6.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	40.15%	16.30%	+23.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	59.69%	19.65%	+40.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	71.94%	16.25%	+55.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	71.39%	38.25%	+33.14%

DAGB.L vs. LCJP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

DAGB.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than LCJP.L's 0.12% expense ratio.

Dividends

DAGB.L vs. LCJP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither DAGB.L nor LCJP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DAGB.L and LCJP.L in my portfolio?

DAGB.L and LCJP.L have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, DAGB.L or LCJP.L?

On fees, LCJP.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, DAGB.L or LCJP.L?

LCJP.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for DAGB.L.

What is the main difference between DAGB.L and LCJP.L?

DAGB.L is categorized as Technology Equities, while LCJP.L is Japan Equities. DAGB.L tracks MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD, while LCJP.L tracks TOPIX TR JPY. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for DAGB.L and 0.12% for LCJP.L.