PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

HMCA.L vs. FXC.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HMCA.L (HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF) and FXC.L (iShares China Large Cap UCITS) are both China Equities funds - HMCA.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY while FXC.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, HMCA.L returned 0.16%/yr vs -1.37%/yr for FXC.L. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. HMCA.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.74%/yr for FXC.L.

Performance

HMCA.L vs. FXC.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 iShares China Large Cap UCITS (FXC.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

HMCA.L is traded in GBP, while FXC.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the FXC.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 9.35% return, which is significantly higher than FXC.L's -6.72% return.

HMCA.L

1D
0.14%
1M
2.79%
YTD
9.35%
6M
12.47%
1Y
38.67%
3Y*
8.45%
5Y*
0.16%
10Y*
—

FXC.L

1D
-2.40%
1M
-1.78%
YTD
-6.72%
6M
-8.20%
1Y
3.46%
3Y*
9.76%
5Y*
-1.37%
10Y*
4.68%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
HMCA.L
HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF		9.35%17.38%13.48%-18.58%-17.12%4.17%39.06%30.18%-12.02%
FXC.L
iShares China Large Cap UCITS		-6.72%20.50%33.78%-17.86%-10.68%-18.89%7.61%10.16%-4.64%

Correlation

The correlation between HMCA.L and FXC.L is 0.63, 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

0.63

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

0.67

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.68

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 30, 2018

0.71

The correlation between HMCA.L and FXC.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors
HMCA.L
FXC.L

Technology

32.1%
5.4%

Financial Services

17.5%
34.7%

Industrials

15.4%
3.1%

Basic Materials

11.2%
4.1%

Consumer Defensive

6.6%
0.9%

Consumer Cyclical

5.2%
26.6%

Healthcare

3.8%
2.3%

Utilities

3.3%
0.4%

Energy

3.2%
5.2%

Communication Services

1.3%
16.2%

Real Estate

0.5%
1.1%

Technology

HMCA.L
32.1%
FXC.L
5.4%

Financial Services

HMCA.L
17.5%
FXC.L
34.7%

Industrials

HMCA.L
15.4%
FXC.L
3.1%

Basic Materials

HMCA.L
11.2%
FXC.L
4.1%

Consumer Defensive

HMCA.L
6.6%
FXC.L
0.9%

Consumer Cyclical

HMCA.L
5.2%
FXC.L
26.6%

Healthcare

HMCA.L
3.8%
FXC.L
2.3%

Utilities

HMCA.L
3.3%
FXC.L
0.4%

Energy

HMCA.L
3.2%
FXC.L
5.2%

Communication Services

HMCA.L
1.3%
FXC.L
16.2%

Real Estate

HMCA.L
0.5%
FXC.L
1.1%

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

iShares China Large Cap UCITS

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 FXC.L:
FXC.L vs. KWEB.LFXC.L vs. FRCH.LFXC.L vs. XCX6.LFXC.L vs. ASIL.LFXC.L vs. IWDA.LFXC.L vs. CSPX.LFXC.L vs. IWDA.AS

Return for Risk

HMCA.L vs. FXC.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: 7979
Overall Rank
HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7777
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8080
Martin Ratio Rank
FXC.L
FXC.L Risk / Return Rank: 1111
Overall Rank
FXC.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1111
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FXC.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1111
Sortino Ratio Rank
FXC.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
FXC.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1212
Calmar Ratio Rank
FXC.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1111
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. FXC.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 iShares China Large Cap UCITS (FXC.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.LFXC.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.51
0.19

+2.32

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.34
0.40

+2.94

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.44

1.05

+0.40

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.50

0.22

+5.28

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.66

0.48

+15.18

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.51, which is higher than the FXC.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HMCA.L and FXC.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

HMCA.LFXC.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.51

0.19

+2.32

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.01

-0.05

+0.06

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.19

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.28

0.31

-0.03

Drawdowns

HMCA.L vs. FXC.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HMCA.L drawdown since its inception was -44.23%, smaller than the maximum FXC.L drawdown of -60.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMCA.L and FXC.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

HMCA.LFXC.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-44.23%

-60.51%

+16.28%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.00%

-15.54%

+8.54%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.19%

-27.53%

+1.34%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-41.62%

-46.74%

+5.12%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-53.90%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-9.73%

-21.71%

+11.98%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-17.97%

-18.76%

+0.79%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.46%

7.20%

-4.74%

Volatility

HMCA.L vs. FXC.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L) is 5.42%, while iShares China Large Cap UCITS (FXC.L) has a volatility of 6.71%. This indicates that HMCA.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FXC.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

HMCA.LFXC.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.42%

6.71%

-1.29%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.37%

12.57%

-2.20%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.35%

17.97%

-2.62%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.22%

28.14%

-6.92%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.88%

24.95%

-2.07%

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

HMCA.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than FXC.L's 0.74% expense ratio.

Dividends

HMCA.L vs. FXC.L - Dividend Comparison

HMCA.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.67%, less than FXC.L's 2.58% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FXC.L
iShares China Large Cap UCITS		2.58%2.37%2.99%3.10%2.85%2.51%3.26%3.22%3.89%3.18%3.04%4.00%
HMCA.L
HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF		1.67%1.76%1.97%2.20%1.76%1.09%0.88%1.78%0.29%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

HMCA.L and FXC.L have a correlation of 0.63, 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 0.74% for FXC.L.

HMCA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while FXC.L tracks MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: HSBC and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for HMCA.L and 0.74% for FXC.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for HMCA.L and FXC.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