PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
HMCA.L vs. CEBG.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

HMCA.L vs. CEBG.L

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

HMCA.L (HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF) and CEBG.L (VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A) are both China Equities funds - HMCA.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY while CEBG.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, HMCA.L returned 12.13%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for CEBG.L. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. HMCA.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for CEBG.L.

Performance

HMCA.L vs. CEBG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L) and VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A (CEBG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HMCA.L achieves a 13.80% return, which is significantly higher than CEBG.L's -5.78% return.

HMCA.L

1D
1.60%
1M
3.77%
YTD
13.80%
6M
14.44%
1Y
40.41%
3Y*
12.13%
5Y*
0.90%
10Y*
—

CEBG.L

1D
0.00%
1M
-3.54%
YTD
-5.78%
6M
-6.28%
1Y
6.18%
3Y*
0.68%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

HMCA.L vs. CEBG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
HMCA.L
HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF		13.80%17.37%13.48%-18.53%-17.18%6.34%
CEBG.L
VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A		-5.78%15.45%1.26%-14.25%-19.48%-21.21%

Correlation

The correlation between HMCA.L and CEBG.L is 0.77, 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

0.77

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

0.84

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 24, 2021

0.85

The correlation between HMCA.L and CEBG.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF

VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A

Often compared with HMCA.L:
HMCA.L vs. NUCG.LHMCA.L vs. BCHS.LHMCA.L vs. HERG.LHMCA.L vs. UC04.LHMCA.L vs. LYPG.DEHMCA.L vs. CNYAHMCA.L vs. SPX5.L
Often compared with CEBG.L:
CEBG.L vs. JRCE.LCEBG.L vs. CM5S.LCEBG.L vs. HMCD.LCEBG.L vs. FRCH.LCEBG.L vs. CA3S.LCEBG.L vs. RQFI.LCEBG.L vs. XCNA.L

Return for Risk

HMCA.L vs. CEBG.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
HMCA.L
HMCA.L Risk / Return Rank: 8787
Overall Rank
HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8585
Sortino Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8383
Omega Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
Martin Ratio Rank
CEBG.L
CEBG.L Risk / Return Rank: 1414
Overall Rank
CEBG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1515
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CEBG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1313
Sortino Ratio Rank
CEBG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1313
Omega Ratio Rank
CEBG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1414
Calmar Ratio Rank
CEBG.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.

HMCA.L vs. CEBG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L) and VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A (CEBG.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.

HMCA.LCEBG.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.49
0.39

+2.10

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.31
0.64

+2.67

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.44

1.08

+0.36

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.73

0.44

+5.29

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.46

0.93

+14.52

HMCA.L vs. CEBG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.49, which is higher than the CEBG.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HMCA.L and CEBG.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...

Drawdowns

HMCA.L vs. CEBG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HMCA.L drawdown since its inception was -44.24%, smaller than the maximum CEBG.L drawdown of -57.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMCA.L and CEBG.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

HMCA.LCEBG.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-44.24%

-57.08%

+12.84%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.01%

-14.08%

+7.07%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.27%

-29.32%

+3.05%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-41.62%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-6.06%

-40.55%

+34.49%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-17.89%

-39.55%

+21.66%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.61%

6.64%

-4.03%

Volatility

HMCA.L vs. CEBG.L - Volatility Comparison

HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L) has a higher volatility of 5.95% compared to VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A (CEBG.L) at 3.61%. This indicates that HMCA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CEBG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

HMCA.LCEBG.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.95%

3.61%

+2.34%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.24%

10.69%

+0.55%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.17%

15.89%

+0.28%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.34%

27.10%

-5.76%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.91%

27.10%

-4.19%

HMCA.L vs. CEBG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

HMCA.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than CEBG.L's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

HMCA.L vs. CEBG.L - Dividend Comparison

HMCA.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.61%, while CEBG.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
CEBG.L
VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
HMCA.L
HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF		1.61%1.76%1.97%2.20%1.76%1.09%0.88%1.78%0.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

HMCA.L and CEBG.L have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, HMCA.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

HMCA.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CEBG.L.

HMCA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while CEBG.L tracks MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: HSBC and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for HMCA.L and 0.60% for CEBG.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for HMCA.L and CEBG.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