HMAF.L vs. XCHA.L

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

HMAF.L (HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD) and XCHA.L (Xtrackers CSI 300 Swap UCITS ETF 1C) are both exchange-traded funds - HMAF.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, while XCHA.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, HMAF.L returned 9.74%/yr vs 8.31%/yr for XCHA.L. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. HMAF.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for XCHA.L.

Performance

HMAF.L vs. XCHA.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 Xtrackers CSI 300 Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCHA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

HMAF.L is traded in GBP, while XCHA.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the XCHA.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HMAF.L achieves a 26.04% return, which is significantly higher than XCHA.L's 7.46% return. Over the past 10 years, HMAF.L has outperformed XCHA.L with an annualized return of 9.74%, while XCHA.L has yielded a comparatively lower 8.31% annualized return.

HMAF.L

• 1D: -1.44%
• 1M: -7.75%
• 6M: 16.30%
• YTD: 26.04%
• 1Y: 47.89%
• 3Y*: 23.01%
• 5Y*: 7.78%
• 10Y*: 9.74%

XCHA.L

• 1D: -1.67%
• 1M: -3.65%
• 6M: 3.05%
• YTD: 7.46%
• 1Y: 30.49%
• 3Y*: 12.63%
• 5Y*: 2.69%
• 10Y*: 8.31%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
HMAF.L HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD	26.04%	31.76%	13.79%	-3.80%	-12.60%	-7.57%	21.71%	13.86%	-8.45%	27.16%
XCHA.L Xtrackers CSI 300 Swap UCITS ETF 1C	7.46%	20.84%	18.03%	-15.45%	-15.25%	4.22%	41.57%	35.22%	-19.77%	23.51%

Correlation

The correlation between HMAF.L and XCHA.L is 0.58, 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	0.58
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.58
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.63
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 26, 2013	0.63

The correlation between HMAF.L and XCHA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.58 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors	HMAF.L	XCHA.L
Technology	55.0%	31.6%
Financial Services	13.9%	18.8%
Consumer Cyclical	8.4%	6.2%
Industrials	6.8%	16.0%
Communication Services	6.0%	1.5%
Basic Materials	2.3%	9.1%
Healthcare	2.0%	4.3%
Consumer Defensive	1.4%	6.6%
Real Estate	1.4%	0.4%
Energy	1.3%	2.7%
Utilities	1.2%	2.9%

Return for Risk

HMAF.L vs. XCHA.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: 80
HMAF.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
HMAF.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
HMAF.L Omega Ratio Rank: 81
HMAF.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
HMAF.L Martin Ratio Rank: 78

XCHA.L

XCHA.L Risk / Return Rank: 70
XCHA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
XCHA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
XCHA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 59
XCHA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
XCHA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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. XCHA.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 Xtrackers CSI 300 Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCHA.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.

	HMAF.L	XCHA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.12	1.61	+0.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.69	2.22	+0.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.29	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.81	3.59	+0.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.67	11.30	+0.36

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

The current HMAF.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.12, which is higher than the XCHA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HMAF.L and XCHA.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

HMAF.L vs. XCHA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HMAF.L drawdown since its inception was -53.81%, which is greater than XCHA.L's maximum drawdown of -47.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMAF.L and XCHA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	HMAF.L	XCHA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.81%	-47.44%	-6.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.50%	-8.46%	-4.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.87%	-24.79%	-2.08%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.43%	-36.94%	+4.51%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.58%	-39.50%	-0.08%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.50%	-8.46%	-4.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.26%	-18.38%	-3.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.09%	2.69%	+1.40%

Volatility

HMAF.L vs. XCHA.L - Volatility Comparison

HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (HMAF.L) has a higher volatility of 11.07% compared to Xtrackers CSI 300 Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCHA.L) at 8.64%. This indicates that HMAF.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XCHA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HMAF.L	XCHA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.07%	8.64%	+2.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.04%	14.35%	+5.69%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.45%	18.85%	+3.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.91%	21.74%	+2.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.50%	22.57%	-1.07%

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

HMAF.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than XCHA.L's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

HMAF.L vs. XCHA.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

HMAF.L and XCHA.L have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

On fees, HMAF.L is cheaper at 0.45% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

HMAF.L is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for XCHA.L.

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

HMAF.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while XCHA.L is China Equities. HMAF.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, while XCHA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: HSBC and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for HMAF.L and 0.50% for XCHA.L.