DLTM.L vs. LCCN.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

DLTM.L (iShares MSCI EM Latin America UCITS ETF) and LCCN.L (Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - DLTM.L is a Latin America Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM Latin America NR USD, while LCCN.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, DLTM.L returned 8.58%/yr vs -4.89%/yr for LCCN.L. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. DLTM.L charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for LCCN.L.

Performance

DLTM.L vs. LCCN.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI EM Latin America UCITS ETF (DLTM.L) and Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DLTM.L achieves a 9.93% return, which is significantly higher than LCCN.L's -7.04% return.

DLTM.L

• 1D: -0.71%
• 1M: -7.84%
• YTD: 9.93%
• 6M: 8.15%
• 1Y: 36.25%
• 3Y*: 13.43%
• 5Y*: 8.58%
• 10Y*: 7.49%

LCCN.L

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: -2.64%
• YTD: -7.04%
• 6M: -8.41%
• 1Y: 5.00%
• 3Y*: 11.02%
• 5Y*: -4.89%
• 10Y*: —

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

DLTM.L vs. LCCN.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
DLTM.L iShares MSCI EM Latin America UCITS ETF	9.93%	54.43%	-26.89%	33.42%	7.99%	-9.75%	-11.20%	12.80%	-1.51%
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc	-7.04%	32.04%	19.37%	-11.61%	-22.21%	-21.87%	29.79%	21.86%	1.99%

Correlation

The correlation between DLTM.L and LCCN.L is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.48
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.47
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2018	0.46

Return for Risk

DLTM.L vs. LCCN.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

DLTM.L

DLTM.L Risk / Return Rank: 53
DLTM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
DLTM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
DLTM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 50
DLTM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
DLTM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 50

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.

DLTM.L vs. LCCN.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI EM Latin America UCITS ETF (DLTM.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.

	DLTM.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	0.25	+1.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.50	0.50	+2.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.06	+0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.93	0.29	+2.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.45	0.61	+7.84
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current DLTM.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is higher than the LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DLTM.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

	DLTM.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.79	0.25	+1.54
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.38	-0.17	+0.54
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.28	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.05	0.11	-0.06

Drawdowns

DLTM.L vs. LCCN.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DLTM.L drawdown since its inception was -64.38%, roughly equal to the maximum LCCN.L drawdown of -62.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DLTM.L and LCCN.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	DLTM.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-64.38%	-62.38%	-2.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.31%	-16.98%	+4.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.83%	-25.52%	-2.31%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.02%	-56.10%	+27.08%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-54.87%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.31%	-34.07%	+21.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.86%	-30.16%	+0.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.28%	8.15%	-3.87%

Volatility

DLTM.L vs. LCCN.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI EM Latin America UCITS ETF (DLTM.L) is 6.11%, while Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) has a volatility of 8.04%. This indicates that DLTM.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

	DLTM.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.11%	8.04%	-1.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.14%	14.66%	+2.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.22%	20.12%	+0.10%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.80%	29.33%	-6.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.57%	27.88%	-1.31%

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

DLTM.L has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than LCCN.L's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

DLTM.L vs. LCCN.L - Dividend Comparison

DLTM.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.50%, while LCCN.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
DLTM.L iShares MSCI EM Latin America UCITS ETF	3.50%	3.54%	5.77%	4.23%	6.82%	3.20%	1.66%	2.31%	2.17%	1.47%	1.44%	2.98%
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

DLTM.L and LCCN.L have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

LCCN.L is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for DLTM.L.

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

DLTM.L is categorized as Latin America Equities, while LCCN.L is China Equities. DLTM.L tracks MSCI EM Latin America NR USD, while LCCN.L tracks MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for DLTM.L and 0.29% for LCCN.L.