HMAF.L vs. LCAL.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

HMAF.L (HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD) and LCAL.L (Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds tracking the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, from HSBC and Amundi respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, HMAF.L returned 9.34%/yr vs 9.02%/yr for LCAL.L. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. HMAF.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for LCAL.L.

Performance

HMAF.L vs. LCAL.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (HMAF.L) and Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc (LCAL.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HMAF.L achieves a 36.25% return, which is significantly higher than LCAL.L's 30.19% return.

HMAF.L

• 1D: -2.32%
• 1M: 8.81%
• YTD: 36.25%
• 6M: 39.16%
• 1Y: 73.09%
• 3Y*: 25.41%
• 5Y*: 9.34%
• 10Y*: 12.09%

LCAL.L

• 1D: -1.65%
• 1M: 8.07%
• YTD: 30.19%
• 6M: 32.55%
• 1Y: 58.76%
• 3Y*: 22.81%
• 5Y*: 9.02%
• 10Y*: —

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

HMAF.L vs. LCAL.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
HMAF.L HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD	36.25%	31.76%	13.79%	-3.80%	-12.60%	-7.57%	21.71%	13.88%	-8.02%
LCAL.L Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc	30.19%	24.10%	13.67%	0.95%	-11.42%	-4.08%	24.20%	14.12%	-7.85%

Correlation

The correlation between HMAF.L and LCAL.L is 0.97 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.97
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.96
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 3, 2018	0.97

The correlation between HMAF.L and LCAL.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

HMAF.L vs. LCAL.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	HMAF.L	LCAL.L
Technology	51.5%	45.2%
Financial Services	14.9%	16.4%
Consumer Cyclical	9.3%	10.5%
Industrials	7.3%	7.1%
Communication Services	6.5%	6.9%
Basic Materials	2.4%	3.0%
Healthcare	2.2%	3.8%
Real Estate	1.6%	1.3%
Consumer Defensive	1.6%	2.9%
Energy	1.4%	2.1%
Utilities	1.3%	1.0%

Return for Risk

HMAF.L vs. LCAL.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

HMAF.L

HMAF.L Risk / Return Rank: 94
HMAF.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
HMAF.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
HMAF.L Omega Ratio Rank: 94
HMAF.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
HMAF.L Martin Ratio Rank: 92

LCAL.L

LCAL.L Risk / Return Rank: 89
LCAL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
LCAL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
LCAL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 90
LCAL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
LCAL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

HMAF.L vs. LCAL.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (HMAF.L) and Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc (LCAL.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.

	HMAF.L	LCAL.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.84	3.16	+0.69
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.74	4.06	+0.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.67	1.57	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.85	5.03	+1.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	22.75	17.08	+5.67
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

HMAF.L vs. LCAL.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HMAF.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.84, which is comparable to the LCAL.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HMAF.L and LCAL.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

	HMAF.L	LCAL.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.84	3.16	+0.69
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.49	0.51	-0.02
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.64	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.54	0.49	+0.06

Drawdowns

HMAF.L vs. LCAL.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HMAF.L drawdown since its inception was -39.58%, which is greater than LCAL.L's maximum drawdown of -33.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMAF.L and LCAL.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	HMAF.L	LCAL.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.58%	-33.83%	-5.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.62%	-11.62%	+1.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.52%	-17.61%	-1.91%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.30%	-28.34%	-5.96%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.58%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.05%	-2.72%	-0.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.55%	-12.58%	+0.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.20%	3.43%	-0.23%

Volatility

HMAF.L vs. LCAL.L - Volatility Comparison

HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (HMAF.L) and Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc (LCAL.L) have volatilities of 8.65% and 8.53%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HMAF.L	LCAL.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.65%	8.53%	+0.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.96%	15.65%	+0.31%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.95%	18.54%	+0.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.03%	17.73%	+1.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.99%	19.02%	-0.03%

HMAF.L vs. LCAL.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

HMAF.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than LCAL.L's 0.12% expense ratio.

Dividends

HMAF.L vs. LCAL.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither HMAF.L nor LCAL.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
HMAF.L HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.59%
LCAL.L Lyxor MSCI EM Asia 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

Can I hold both HMAF.L and LCAL.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.97, HMAF.L and LCAL.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.

Which ETF is better, HMAF.L or LCAL.L?

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

Which ETF is cheaper, HMAF.L or LCAL.L?

LCAL.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for HMAF.L.

What is the main difference between HMAF.L and LCAL.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: HSBC and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for HMAF.L and 0.12% for LCAL.L.