FRCH.L vs. CNAL.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

FRCH.L (Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF) and CNAL.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) are both China Equities funds - FRCH.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD while CNAL.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FRCH.L returned -3.83%/yr vs -0.03%/yr for CNAL.L. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FRCH.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for CNAL.L.

Performance

FRCH.L vs. CNAL.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FRCH.L) and Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

FRCH.L is traded in GBP, while CNAL.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the CNAL.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FRCH.L achieves a -6.14% return, which is significantly lower than CNAL.L's 8.97% return.

FRCH.L

• 1D: -0.31%
• 1M: -2.10%
• YTD: -6.14%
• 6M: -8.12%
• 1Y: 7.54%
• 3Y*: 8.07%
• 5Y*: -3.83%
• 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)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FRCH.L Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF	-6.14%	23.22%	21.12%	-17.46%	-13.83%	-19.34%	26.80%	-10.87%
CNAL.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR	8.97%	16.96%	16.16%	-18.82%	-20.03%	8.27%	35.63%	9.05%

Correlation

The correlation between FRCH.L and CNAL.L is 0.69, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.69
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.45
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2019	0.31

Over the past year, FRCH.L and CNAL.L have become more correlated (0.69) than their long-term average of 0.31, meaning their price movements have been converging.

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

Sectors	FRCH.L	CNAL.L
Consumer Cyclical	24.5%	5.6%
Financial Services	18.3%	18.8%
Communication Services	16.4%	1.4%
Technology	11.3%	27.2%
Industrials	7.9%	15.7%
Basic Materials	5.6%	12.4%
Healthcare	5.5%	4.3%
Energy	3.5%	3.4%
Consumer Defensive	3.3%	7.4%
Utilities	2.0%	3.2%
Real Estate	1.7%	0.6%

Return for Risk

FRCH.L vs. CNAL.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

FRCH.L

FRCH.L Risk / Return Rank: 15
FRCH.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
FRCH.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
FRCH.L Omega Ratio Rank: 15
FRCH.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
FRCH.L Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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.

FRCH.L vs. CNAL.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FRCH.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.

	FRCH.L	CNAL.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.43	2.41	-1.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.71	3.24	-2.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.43	-0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.48	5.41	-4.93
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.00	15.33	-14.33
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current FRCH.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.43, which is lower than the CNAL.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FRCH.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

	FRCH.L	CNAL.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.43	2.41	-1.98
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.12	-0.00	-0.12
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.04	0.33	-0.37

Drawdowns

FRCH.L vs. CNAL.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FRCH.L drawdown since its inception was -56.27%, which is greater than CNAL.L's maximum drawdown of -44.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FRCH.L and CNAL.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FRCH.L	CNAL.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.27%	-44.83%	-11.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.77%	-6.91%	-8.86%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.42%	-26.58%	-2.84%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-49.18%	-42.19%	-6.99%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-31.36%	-11.26%	-20.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.72%	-21.39%	-8.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.53%	2.44%	+5.09%

Volatility

FRCH.L vs. CNAL.L - Volatility Comparison

Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FRCH.L) has a higher volatility of 6.61% compared to Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L) at 5.51%. This indicates that FRCH.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CNAL.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FRCH.L	CNAL.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.61%	5.51%	+1.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.34%	10.58%	+1.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.57%	15.52%	+2.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.60%	31.33%	+1.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.15%	40.07%	-8.92%

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

FRCH.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than CNAL.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

FRCH.L vs. CNAL.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

FRCH.L and CNAL.L have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FRCH.L or CNAL.L?

On fees, FRCH.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, FRCH.L or CNAL.L?

FRCH.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CNAL.L.

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

FRCH.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while CNAL.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FRCH.L and 0.35% for CNAL.L.