GFA.L vs. UHYC.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

GFA.L (VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF) and UHYC.L (Lyxor ESG USD High Yield (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc) are both High Yield Bonds funds - GFA.L tracks the VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF while UHYC.L tracks the Bloomberg US Corporate High Yield TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GFA.L returned 2.71%/yr vs 3.47%/yr for UHYC.L. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GFA.L charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for UHYC.L.

Performance

GFA.L vs. UHYC.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFA.L) and Lyxor ESG USD High Yield (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (UHYC.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GFA.L achieves a 2.23% return, which is significantly higher than UHYC.L's 1.70% return.

GFA.L

• 1D: -1.58%
• 1M: -1.67%
• 6M: 2.02%
• YTD: 2.23%
• 1Y: 5.68%
• 3Y*: 7.70%
• 5Y*: 2.71%
• 10Y*: —

UHYC.L

• 1D: 0.17%
• 1M: -0.00%
• 6M: 1.44%
• YTD: 1.70%
• 1Y: 6.12%
• 3Y*: 8.82%
• 5Y*: 3.47%
• 10Y*: —

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

GFA.L vs. UHYC.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GFA.L VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF	2.23%	9.97%	6.02%	10.29%	-12.56%	-0.99%
UHYC.L Lyxor ESG USD High Yield (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc	1.70%	8.78%	7.98%	12.03%	-12.31%	0.95%

Correlation

The correlation between GFA.L and UHYC.L is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.65
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2021	0.70

The correlation between GFA.L and UHYC.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.55 (1 year) to 0.70 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

GFA.L vs. UHYC.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

GFA.L

GFA.L Risk / Return Rank: 29
GFA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
GFA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
GFA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 29
GFA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
GFA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 32

UHYC.L

UHYC.L Risk / Return Rank: 64
UHYC.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
UHYC.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
UHYC.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
UHYC.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
UHYC.L Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

GFA.L vs. UHYC.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFA.L) and Lyxor ESG USD High Yield (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (UHYC.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.

	GFA.L	UHYC.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.83	1.66	-0.83
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.16	2.60	-1.44
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.32	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.42	2.19	-0.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.83	9.65	-5.82

GFA.L vs. UHYC.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GFA.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.83, which is lower than the UHYC.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GFA.L and UHYC.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

GFA.L vs. UHYC.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GFA.L drawdown since its inception was -22.98%, which is greater than UHYC.L's maximum drawdown of -16.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GFA.L and UHYC.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	GFA.L	UHYC.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.98%	-16.72%	-6.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.90%	-2.78%	-1.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.14%	-4.90%	-0.24%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.54%	-16.72%	-5.82%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.07%	-0.17%	-1.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.38%	-3.90%	-0.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.45%	0.63%	+0.82%

Volatility

GFA.L vs. UHYC.L - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF (GFA.L) has a higher volatility of 2.17% compared to Lyxor ESG USD High Yield (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (UHYC.L) at 0.75%. This indicates that GFA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than UHYC.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GFA.L	UHYC.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.17%	0.75%	+1.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.88%	2.95%	+2.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.68%	3.67%	+3.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.29%	7.44%	+0.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.44%	7.42%	+1.02%

GFA.L vs. UHYC.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

GFA.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than UHYC.L's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

GFA.L vs. UHYC.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither GFA.L nor UHYC.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GFA.L and UHYC.L in my portfolio?

GFA.L and UHYC.L have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GFA.L or UHYC.L?

On fees, UHYC.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GFA.L or UHYC.L?

UHYC.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for GFA.L.

What is the main difference between GFA.L and UHYC.L?

GFA.L tracks VanEck Global Fallen Angel High Yield Bond UCITS ETF, while UHYC.L tracks Bloomberg US Corporate High Yield TR USD. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for GFA.L and 0.25% for UHYC.L.