HMCA.L vs. CNAA.L

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

HMCA.L (HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF) and CNAA.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, from HSBC and Amundi respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, HMCA.L returned -1.35%/yr vs -0.89%/yr for CNAA.L. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. HMCA.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for CNAA.L.

Performance

HMCA.L vs. CNAA.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 Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HMCA.L achieves a 0.61% return, which is significantly lower than CNAA.L's 4.25% return.

HMCA.L

• 1D: -3.23%
• 1M: -9.00%
• 6M: -2.53%
• YTD: 0.61%
• 1Y: 19.76%
• 3Y*: 7.57%
• 5Y*: -1.35%
• 10Y*: —

CNAA.L

• 1D: -1.86%
• 1M: -6.86%
• 6M: 0.83%
• YTD: 4.25%
• 1Y: 23.83%
• 3Y*: 8.50%
• 5Y*: -0.89%
• 10Y*: 4.08%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
HMCA.L HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF	0.61%	17.37%	13.48%	-18.53%	-17.18%	4.22%	39.07%	30.05%	-11.99%
CNAA.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR	4.25%	17.14%	12.85%	-18.48%	-17.18%	4.19%	38.58%	31.66%	-14.23%

Correlation

The correlation between HMCA.L and CNAA.L is 0.95, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.95
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 27, 2018	0.93

The correlation between HMCA.L and CNAA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

HMCA.L vs. CNAA.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	HMCA.L	CNAA.L
Technology	32.1%	33.2%
Financial Services	17.5%	16.8%
Industrials	15.3%	17.4%
Basic Materials	11.2%	10.2%
Consumer Defensive	6.7%	6.0%
Consumer Cyclical	5.2%	4.8%
Healthcare	3.9%	3.8%
Utilities	3.3%	2.9%
Energy	3.1%	2.7%
Communication Services	1.3%	0.5%
Real Estate	0.5%	0.6%

Return for Risk

HMCA.L vs. CNAA.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: 40
HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
HMCA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
HMCA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 37
HMCA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
HMCA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 50

CNAA.L

CNAA.L Risk / Return Rank: 58
CNAA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
CNAA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
CNAA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 48
CNAA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
CNAA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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. CNAA.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 Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.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.L	CNAA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.09	1.31	-0.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.55	1.85	-0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.24	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.61	2.61	-0.99
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.43	8.14	-1.70

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

The current HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.09, which is comparable to the CNAA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HMCA.L and CNAA.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

HMCA.L vs. CNAA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HMCA.L drawdown since its inception was -44.24%, smaller than the maximum CNAA.L drawdown of -50.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMCA.L and CNAA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	HMCA.L	CNAA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.24%	-50.93%	+6.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.20%	-9.52%	-2.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.27%	-26.66%	+0.39%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.62%	-42.50%	+0.88%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-45.04%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.95%	-15.29%	-1.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.84%	-25.69%	+7.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.06%	3.06%	0.00%

Volatility

HMCA.L vs. CNAA.L - Volatility Comparison

HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L) and Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L) have volatilities of 9.03% and 8.64%, 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

	HMCA.L	CNAA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.03%	8.64%	+0.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.76%	14.64%	-0.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.06%	18.99%	-0.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.56%	21.83%	-0.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.01%	22.33%	+0.68%

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

HMCA.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than CNAA.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

HMCA.L vs. CNAA.L - Dividend Comparison

HMCA.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.82%, while CNAA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CNAA.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR	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	1.82%	1.76%	1.97%	2.20%	1.76%	1.09%	0.88%	1.78%	0.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HMCA.L and CNAA.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, HMCA.L and CNAA.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, HMCA.L or CNAA.L?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, HMCA.L or CNAA.L?

HMCA.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CNAA.L.

What is the main difference between HMCA.L and CNAA.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: HSBC and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for HMCA.L and 0.35% for CNAA.L.