FLXC.L vs. CC1U.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

FLXC.L (Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF) and CC1U.L (Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China NR USD, from Franklin Templeton and Amundi respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLXC.L returned -4.32%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for CC1U.L. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FLXC.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for CC1U.L.

Performance

FLXC.L vs. CC1U.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FLXC.L) and Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD (CC1U.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLXC.L achieves a -8.35% return, which is significantly lower than CC1U.L's -7.55% return.

FLXC.L

• 1D: 1.78%
• 1M: -1.33%
• 6M: -12.83%
• YTD: -8.35%
• 1Y: 0.10%
• 3Y*: 8.62%
• 5Y*: -4.32%
• 10Y*: —

CC1U.L

• 1D: 0.79%
• 1M: -6.87%
• 6M: -13.68%
• YTD: -7.55%
• 1Y: 10.82%
• 3Y*: 1.83%
• 5Y*: 0.09%
• 10Y*: —

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

FLXC.L vs. CC1U.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FLXC.L Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF	-8.35%	32.15%	19.39%	-12.76%	-23.03%	-20.35%	31.22%	17.62%
CC1U.L Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD	-7.55%	39.49%	1.53%	-11.33%	-9.32%	-3.10%	-1.85%	7.68%

Correlation

The correlation between FLXC.L and CC1U.L is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2019	0.82

The correlation between FLXC.L and CC1U.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLXC.L vs. CC1U.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLXC.L	CC1U.L
Financial Services	56.7%	1.3%
Industrials	14.3%	13.4%
Technology	12.0%	29.6%
Consumer Cyclical	5.9%	20.7%
Healthcare	3.2%	6.6%
Basic Materials	2.9%	13.0%
Energy	2.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	1.1%	0.5%
Communication Services	0.2%	10.0%
Real Estate	0.2%	1.5%
Utilities	0.2%	3.4%

Return for Risk

FLXC.L vs. CC1U.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLXC.L

FLXC.L Risk / Return Rank: 9
FLXC.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
FLXC.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
FLXC.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9
FLXC.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
FLXC.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9

CC1U.L

CC1U.L Risk / Return Rank: 17
CC1U.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
CC1U.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
CC1U.L Omega Ratio Rank: 17
CC1U.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
CC1U.L Martin Ratio Rank: 16

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.

FLXC.L vs. CC1U.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FLXC.L) and Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD (CC1U.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.

	FLXC.L	CC1U.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.01	0.45	-0.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.14	0.78	-0.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.02	1.09	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.00	0.58	-0.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.01	1.22	-1.21

FLXC.L vs. CC1U.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLXC.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.01, which is lower than the CC1U.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLXC.L and CC1U.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

FLXC.L vs. CC1U.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLXC.L drawdown since its inception was -61.74%, which is greater than CC1U.L's maximum drawdown of -45.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLXC.L and CC1U.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLXC.L	CC1U.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-61.74%	-45.32%	-16.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.43%	-18.53%	-2.90%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.43%	-39.67%	+14.24%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-52.70%	-42.25%	-10.45%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-35.12%	-16.97%	-18.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.72%	-16.00%	-15.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.74%	8.81%	+0.93%

Volatility

FLXC.L vs. CC1U.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FLXC.L) is 5.29%, while Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD (CC1U.L) has a volatility of 7.42%. This indicates that FLXC.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CC1U.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLXC.L	CC1U.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.29%	7.42%	-2.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.77%	16.80%	-3.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.09%	24.00%	-4.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.40%	27.34%	+1.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.19%	25.46%	+1.73%

FLXC.L vs. CC1U.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLXC.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than CC1U.L's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLXC.L vs. CC1U.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither FLXC.L nor CC1U.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLXC.L and CC1U.L in my portfolio?

FLXC.L and CC1U.L have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FLXC.L or CC1U.L?

On fees, FLXC.L is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLXC.L or CC1U.L?

FLXC.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for CC1U.L.

What is the main difference between FLXC.L and CC1U.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLXC.L and 0.45% for CC1U.L.