HMCA.L vs. CNAL.L
HMCA.L (HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF) and CNAL.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 0.05%/yr vs -0.03%/yr for CNAL.L. At a 0.38 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HMCA.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for CNAL.L.
Performance
HMCA.L vs. CNAL.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
HMCA.L is traded in GBP, while CNAL.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the CNAL.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with HMCA.L having a 8.77% return and CNAL.L slightly higher at 8.97%.
HMCA.L
- 1D
- -0.53%
- 1M
- 1.89%
- YTD
- 8.77%
- 6M
- 11.73%
- 1Y
- 37.20%
- 3Y*
- 8.50%
- 5Y*
- 0.05%
- 10Y*
- —
CNAL.L
- 1D
- -0.64%
- 1M
- 2.13%
- YTD
- 8.97%
- 6M
- 12.11%
- 1Y
- 37.56%
- 3Y*
- 7.96%
- 5Y*
- -0.03%
- 10Y*
- —
HMCA.L vs. CNAL.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HMCA.L HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF | 8.77% | 17.38% | 13.48% | -18.58% | -17.12% | 4.17% | 39.06% | 30.18% | -12.02% |
CNAL.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR | 8.97% | 16.96% | 16.16% | -18.82% | -20.03% | 8.27% | 35.63% | 30.64% | -12.53% |
Correlation
The correlation between HMCA.L and CNAL.L is 0.98 - 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 | 0.98 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.62 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.49 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 30, 2018 | 0.38 |
Over the past year, HMCA.L and CNAL.L have become more correlated (0.98) than their long-term average of 0.38, meaning their price movements have been converging.
HMCA.L vs. CNAL.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
HMCA.L
CNAL.L
Technology
Financial Services
Industrials
Basic Materials
Consumer Defensive
Consumer Cyclical
Healthcare
Utilities
Energy
Communication Services
Real Estate
Technology
HMCA.L
CNAL.L
Financial Services
HMCA.L
CNAL.L
Industrials
HMCA.L
CNAL.L
Basic Materials
HMCA.L
CNAL.L
Consumer Defensive
HMCA.L
CNAL.L
Consumer Cyclical
HMCA.L
CNAL.L
Healthcare
HMCA.L
CNAL.L
Utilities
HMCA.L
CNAL.L
Energy
HMCA.L
CNAL.L
Communication Services
HMCA.L
CNAL.L
Real Estate
HMCA.L
CNAL.L
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
HMCA.L vs. CNAL.L — Risk / Return Rank
HMCA.L
CNAL.L
HMCA.L vs. CNAL.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 (CNAL.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.
| HMCA.L | CNAL.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.01 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.02 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.43 | 1.43 | 0.00 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.29 | 5.41 | -0.12 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 15.02 | 15.33 | -0.31 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| HMCA.L | CNAL.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.42 | 2.41 | +0.01 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.00 | -0.00 | 0.00 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.28 | 0.33 | -0.05 |
Drawdowns
HMCA.L vs. CNAL.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum HMCA.L drawdown since its inception was -44.23%, roughly equal to the maximum CNAL.L drawdown of -44.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMCA.L and CNAL.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| HMCA.L | CNAL.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -44.23% | -44.83% | +0.60% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.00% | -6.91% | -0.09% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -26.19% | -26.58% | +0.39% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -41.62% | -42.19% | +0.57% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -10.21% | -11.26% | +1.05% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -17.96% | -21.39% | +3.43% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.47% | 2.44% | +0.03% |
Volatility
HMCA.L vs. CNAL.L - Volatility Comparison
HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L) and Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L) have volatilities of 5.46% and 5.51%, 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| HMCA.L | CNAL.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.46% | 5.51% | -0.05% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.35% | 10.58% | -0.23% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.33% | 15.52% | -0.19% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.22% | 31.33% | -10.11% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.88% | 40.07% | -17.19% |
HMCA.L vs. CNAL.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
HMCA.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than CNAL.L's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
HMCA.L vs. CNAL.L - Dividend Comparison
HMCA.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.68%, while CNAL.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNAL.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 | 1.68% | 1.76% | 1.97% | 2.20% | 1.76% | 1.09% | 0.88% | 1.78% | 0.29% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.98, HMCA.L and CNAL.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.
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 0.35% for CNAL.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 CNAL.L.
Find the right allocation for HMCA.L and CNAL.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