PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
FXC.L vs. LCCN.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

FXC.L vs. LCCN.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FXC.L (iShares China Large Cap UCITS) and LCCN.L (Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China NR USD, from iShares and Amundi respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FXC.L returned -1.37%/yr vs -3.84%/yr for LCCN.L. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FXC.L charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for LCCN.L.

Performance

FXC.L vs. LCCN.L - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

FXC.L is traded in GBp, while LCCN.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the LCCN.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with FXC.L having a -6.72% return and LCCN.L slightly higher at -6.57%.

FXC.L

1D
-2.40%
1M
-1.78%
YTD
-6.72%
6M
-8.20%
1Y
3.46%
3Y*
9.76%
5Y*
-1.37%
10Y*
4.68%

LCCN.L

1D
-2.23%
1M
-1.90%
YTD
-6.57%
6M
-8.39%
1Y
8.03%
3Y*
7.85%
5Y*
-3.84%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
FXC.L
iShares China Large Cap UCITS		-6.72%20.50%33.78%-17.86%-10.68%-18.89%7.61%10.16%2.12%
LCCN.L
Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc		-6.57%22.63%21.46%-16.03%-12.96%-21.13%25.98%17.23%2.09%

Correlation

The correlation between FXC.L and LCCN.L is 0.95, 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

0.95

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.96

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.96

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2018

0.94

The correlation between FXC.L and LCCN.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

FXC.L vs. LCCN.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
FXC.L
LCCN.L

Financial Services

34.7%
19.1%

Consumer Cyclical

26.6%
26.4%

Communication Services

16.2%
18.8%

Technology

5.4%
9.6%

Energy

5.2%
3.7%

Basic Materials

4.1%
5.5%

Industrials

3.1%
5.0%

Healthcare

2.3%
5.4%

Real Estate

1.1%
1.5%

Consumer Defensive

0.9%
3.2%

Utilities

0.4%
1.7%

Financial Services

FXC.L
34.7%
LCCN.L
19.1%

Consumer Cyclical

FXC.L
26.6%
LCCN.L
26.4%

Communication Services

FXC.L
16.2%
LCCN.L
18.8%

Technology

FXC.L
5.4%
LCCN.L
9.6%

Energy

FXC.L
5.2%
LCCN.L
3.7%

Basic Materials

FXC.L
4.1%
LCCN.L
5.5%

Industrials

FXC.L
3.1%
LCCN.L
5.0%

Healthcare

FXC.L
2.3%
LCCN.L
5.4%

Real Estate

FXC.L
1.1%
LCCN.L
1.5%

Consumer Defensive

FXC.L
0.9%
LCCN.L
3.2%

Utilities

FXC.L
0.4%
LCCN.L
1.7%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares China Large Cap UCITS

Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc

Often compared with FXC.L:
FXC.L vs. KWEB.LFXC.L vs. FRCH.LFXC.L vs. XCX6.LFXC.L vs. ASIL.LFXC.L vs. IWDA.LFXC.L vs. CSPX.LFXC.L vs. IWDA.AS
Often compared with LCCN.L:
LCCN.L vs. FLXC.LLCCN.L vs. CNAA.LLCCN.L vs. LHKG.DELCCN.L vs. PAXG.LLCCN.L vs. KWEBLCCN.L vs. qqqLCCN.L vs. XS6R.L

Return for Risk

FXC.L vs. LCCN.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
FXC.L
FXC.L Risk / Return Rank: 1111
Overall Rank
FXC.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1111
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FXC.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1111
Sortino Ratio Rank
FXC.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
FXC.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1212
Calmar Ratio Rank
FXC.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1111
Martin Ratio Rank
LCCN.L
LCCN.L Risk / Return Rank: 1414
Overall Rank
LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1414
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LCCN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1414
Sortino Ratio Rank
LCCN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1414
Omega Ratio Rank
LCCN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1414
Calmar Ratio Rank
LCCN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1313
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares China Large Cap UCITS (FXC.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.

FXC.LLCCN.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.19
0.41

-0.22

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.40
0.71

-0.31

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.05

1.08

-0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.22

0.47

-0.25

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.48

1.00

-0.52

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current FXC.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.19, which is lower than the LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FXC.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.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

FXC.LLCCN.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.19

0.41

-0.22

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.05

-0.14

+0.09

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.19

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.31

0.09

+0.21

Drawdowns

FXC.L vs. LCCN.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FXC.L drawdown since its inception was -60.51%, which is greater than LCCN.L's maximum drawdown of -56.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FXC.L and LCCN.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

FXC.LLCCN.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-60.51%

-56.30%

-4.21%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-15.54%

-16.84%

+1.30%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-27.53%

-24.76%

-2.77%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-46.74%

-49.10%

+2.36%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-53.90%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-21.71%

-31.62%

+9.91%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-18.76%

-27.00%

+8.24%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.20%

8.01%

-0.81%

Volatility

FXC.L vs. LCCN.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares China Large Cap UCITS (FXC.L) is 6.71%, while Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) has a volatility of 7.48%. This indicates that FXC.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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

FXC.LLCCN.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.71%

7.48%

-0.77%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.57%

14.16%

-1.59%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.97%

19.54%

-1.57%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

28.14%

28.02%

+0.12%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.95%

26.95%

-2.00%

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

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

Dividends

FXC.L vs. LCCN.L - Dividend Comparison

FXC.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.58%, while LCCN.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FXC.L
iShares China Large Cap UCITS		2.58%2.37%2.99%3.10%2.85%2.51%3.26%3.22%3.89%3.18%3.04%4.00%
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

With a correlation of 0.95, FXC.L and LCCN.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.

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.

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

Both ETFs track MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for FXC.L and 0.29% for LCCN.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FXC.L and LCCN.L

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer