HMCA.L vs. HNSS.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HMCA.L (HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF) and HNSS.L (HSBC Nasdaq Global Semiconductor UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HMCA.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while HNSS.L is a Semiconductors fund tracking the Nasdaq Global Semiconductor Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, HMCA.L returned 8.45%/yr vs 59.57%/yr for HNSS.L. At a 0.22 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HMCA.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for HNSS.L.

Performance

HMCA.L vs. HNSS.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 HSBC Nasdaq Global Semiconductor UCITS ETF (HNSS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HMCA.L achieves a 9.35% return, which is significantly lower than HNSS.L's 97.02% 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*: —

HNSS.L

• 1D: 1.61%
• 1M: 31.57%
• YTD: 97.02%
• 6M: 99.27%
• 1Y: 206.01%
• 3Y*: 59.57%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
HMCA.L HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF	9.35%	17.38%	13.48%	-18.58%	-12.60%
HNSS.L HSBC Nasdaq Global Semiconductor UCITS ETF	97.02%	45.50%	19.96%	60.90%	-19.12%

Correlation

The correlation between HMCA.L and HNSS.L is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.35
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 27, 2022	0.22

The correlation between HMCA.L and HNSS.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.20 (3 years) to 0.35 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

HMCA.L vs. HNSS.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: 79
HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
HMCA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
HMCA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 75
HMCA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
HMCA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 80

HNSS.L

HNSS.L Risk / Return Rank: 97
HNSS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
HNSS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
HNSS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 96
HNSS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
HNSS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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. HNSS.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 HSBC Nasdaq Global Semiconductor UCITS ETF (HNSS.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	HNSS.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.51	6.48	-3.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.34	6.28	-2.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.83	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.50	15.56	-10.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.66	53.42	-37.76
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. HNSS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.51, which is lower than the HNSS.L Sharpe Ratio of 6.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HMCA.L and HNSS.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	HMCA.L	HNSS.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.51	6.48	-3.97
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.01	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.28	1.37	-1.09

Drawdowns

HMCA.L vs. HNSS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HMCA.L drawdown since its inception was -44.23%, which is greater than HNSS.L's maximum drawdown of -36.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMCA.L and HNSS.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	HMCA.L	HNSS.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.23%	-36.83%	-7.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.00%	-13.16%	+6.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.19%	-36.83%	+10.64%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.62%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.73%	0.00%	-9.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.97%	-9.56%	-8.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.46%	3.84%	-1.38%

Volatility

HMCA.L vs. HNSS.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L) is 5.42%, while HSBC Nasdaq Global Semiconductor UCITS ETF (HNSS.L) has a volatility of 13.37%. This indicates that HMCA.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HNSS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HMCA.L	HNSS.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.42%	13.37%	-7.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.37%	24.40%	-14.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.35%	31.66%	-16.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.22%	30.10%	-8.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.88%	30.10%	-7.22%

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

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

Dividends

HMCA.L vs. HNSS.L - Dividend Comparison

HMCA.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.67%, while HNSS.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
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%
HNSS.L HSBC Nasdaq Global Semiconductor UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

HMCA.L and HNSS.L have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, HMCA.L or HNSS.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 HNSS.L?

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

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

HMCA.L is categorized as China Equities, while HNSS.L is Semiconductors. HMCA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while HNSS.L tracks Nasdaq Global Semiconductor Index. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for HMCA.L and 0.35% for HNSS.L.