PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FXC.L vs. SGLN.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FXC.L vs. SGLN.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares China Large Cap UCITS (FXC.L) and iShares Physical Gold ETC (SGLN.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FXC.L achieves a -6.72% return, which is significantly lower than SGLN.L's 3.17% return. Over the past 10 years, FXC.L has underperformed SGLN.L with an annualized return of 4.68%, while SGLN.L has yielded a comparatively higher 14.29% annualized return.


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%

SGLN.L

1D
-1.14%
1M
-2.89%
YTD
3.17%
6M
4.34%
1Y
33.24%
3Y*
27.91%
5Y*
19.95%
10Y*
14.29%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FXC.L
iShares China Large Cap UCITS
-6.72%20.50%33.78%-17.86%-10.68%-18.89%7.61%10.16%-6.21%24.12%
SGLN.L
iShares Physical Gold ETC
3.17%53.66%28.20%7.24%11.84%-2.57%19.62%14.63%4.36%1.68%

Correlation

The correlation between FXC.L and SGLN.L is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.25

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

0.09

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

0.07

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.08

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 13, 2011

0.07

The correlation between FXC.L and SGLN.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.07 (all time) to 0.25 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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


Return for Risk

FXC.L vs. SGLN.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

SGLN.L
SGLN.L Risk / Return Rank: 3737
Overall Rank
SGLN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3939
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SGLN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3434
Sortino Ratio Rank
SGLN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4343
Omega Ratio Rank
SGLN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3737
Calmar Ratio Rank
SGLN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3333
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. SGLN.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares China Large Cap UCITS (FXC.L) and iShares Physical Gold ETC (SGLN.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.LSGLN.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.23

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.46

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.05

1.28

-0.24

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.22

1.88

-1.66

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.48

5.03

-4.55

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

The current FXC.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.19, which is lower than the SGLN.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FXC.L and SGLN.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.LSGLN.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.19

1.43

-1.23

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.05

1.22

-1.27

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.19

0.90

-0.72

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.31

0.55

-0.24

Drawdowns

FXC.L vs. SGLN.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FXC.L drawdown since its inception was -60.51%, which is greater than SGLN.L's maximum drawdown of -41.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FXC.L and SGLN.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FXC.LSGLN.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-60.51%

-41.71%

-18.80%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-15.54%

-17.57%

+2.03%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-27.53%

-17.57%

-9.96%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-46.74%

-17.57%

-29.17%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-53.90%

-21.91%

-31.99%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-21.71%

-16.59%

-5.12%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-18.76%

-14.76%

-4.00%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.20%

6.60%

+0.60%

Volatility

FXC.L vs. SGLN.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares China Large Cap UCITS (FXC.L) has a higher volatility of 6.71% compared to iShares Physical Gold ETC (SGLN.L) at 5.08%. This indicates that FXC.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SGLN.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FXC.LSGLN.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.71%

5.08%

+1.63%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.57%

20.07%

-7.50%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.97%

23.19%

-5.22%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

28.14%

16.29%

+11.85%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.95%

15.78%

+9.17%

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

FXC.L has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than SGLN.L's 0.12% expense ratio.


Dividends

FXC.L vs. SGLN.L - Dividend Comparison

FXC.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.58%, while SGLN.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%
SGLN.L
iShares Physical Gold ETC
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


FXC.L and SGLN.L have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

SGLN.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for FXC.L.

FXC.L is categorized as China Equities, while SGLN.L is Gold. FXC.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while SGLN.L tracks LBMA Gold Price. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for FXC.L and 0.12% for SGLN.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FXC.L and SGLN.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