PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
HMCD.L vs. CC1U.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

HMCD.L vs. CC1U.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCD.L) and Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD (CC1U.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HMCD.L achieves a -7.16% return, which is significantly lower than CC1U.L's 2.42% return. Over the past 10 years, HMCD.L has outperformed CC1U.L with an annualized return of 5.01%, while CC1U.L has yielded a comparatively lower 4.36% annualized return.


HMCD.L

1D
-2.92%
1M
-3.29%
YTD
-7.16%
6M
-8.08%
1Y
6.94%
3Y*
10.22%
5Y*
-5.15%
10Y*
5.01%

CC1U.L

1D
-1.98%
1M
0.24%
YTD
2.42%
6M
3.76%
1Y
36.08%
3Y*
6.97%
5Y*
1.21%
10Y*
4.36%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

HMCD.L vs. CC1U.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
HMCD.L
HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF
-7.16%31.58%18.68%-11.51%-22.53%-22.09%29.32%21.59%-18.94%54.07%
CC1U.L
Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD
2.42%39.49%1.53%-11.33%-9.32%-3.10%-1.85%12.90%-14.42%29.16%

Correlation

The correlation between HMCD.L and CC1U.L is 0.84, 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

0.84

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

0.86

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

0.85

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.85

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 6, 2011

0.83

The correlation between HMCD.L and CC1U.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

HMCD.L vs. CC1U.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
HMCD.L
CC1U.L

Consumer Cyclical

26.5%
20.7%

Financial Services

19.1%
1.3%

Communication Services

18.8%
10.0%

Technology

9.5%
29.6%

Basic Materials

5.5%
13.0%

Healthcare

5.3%
6.6%

Industrials

5.0%
13.4%

Energy

3.7%

-

Consumer Defensive

3.2%
0.5%

Utilities

1.7%
3.4%

Real Estate

1.5%
1.5%

Consumer Cyclical

HMCD.L
26.5%
CC1U.L
20.7%

Financial Services

HMCD.L
19.1%
CC1U.L
1.3%

Communication Services

HMCD.L
18.8%
CC1U.L
10.0%

Technology

HMCD.L
9.5%
CC1U.L
29.6%

Basic Materials

HMCD.L
5.5%
CC1U.L
13.0%

Healthcare

HMCD.L
5.3%
CC1U.L
6.6%

Industrials

HMCD.L
5.0%
CC1U.L
13.4%

Energy

HMCD.L
3.7%
CC1U.L

-

Consumer Defensive

HMCD.L
3.2%
CC1U.L
0.5%

Utilities

HMCD.L
1.7%
CC1U.L
3.4%

Real Estate

HMCD.L
1.5%
CC1U.L
1.5%

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

HMCD.L vs. CC1U.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

HMCD.L
HMCD.L Risk / Return Rank: 1414
Overall Rank
HMCD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1414
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HMCD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1414
Sortino Ratio Rank
HMCD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1414
Omega Ratio Rank
HMCD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1414
Calmar Ratio Rank
HMCD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1313
Martin Ratio Rank

CC1U.L
CC1U.L Risk / Return Rank: 4141
Overall Rank
CC1U.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4545
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CC1U.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4242
Sortino Ratio Rank
CC1U.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4242
Omega Ratio Rank
CC1U.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4545
Calmar Ratio Rank
CC1U.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3232
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.

HMCD.L vs. CC1U.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCD.L) and Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD (CC1U.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.


HMCD.LCC1U.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.22

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.53

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.07

1.27

-0.20

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.40

2.20

-1.80

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.84

4.93

-4.09

HMCD.L vs. CC1U.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HMCD.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.34, which is lower than the CC1U.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HMCD.L and CC1U.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


HMCD.LCC1U.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.34

1.56

-1.22

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.18

0.04

-0.22

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.19

0.18

+0.01

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.12

0.18

-0.06

Drawdowns

HMCD.L vs. CC1U.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HMCD.L drawdown since its inception was -62.46%, which is greater than CC1U.L's maximum drawdown of -51.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMCD.L and CC1U.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


HMCD.LCC1U.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-62.46%

-51.06%

-11.40%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.07%

-16.29%

-0.78%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.60%

-39.24%

+13.64%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-56.17%

-43.08%

-13.09%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-62.46%

-51.06%

-11.40%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-34.97%

-8.84%

-26.13%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-24.30%

-22.28%

-2.02%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.24%

7.30%

+0.94%

Volatility

HMCD.L vs. CC1U.L - Volatility Comparison

HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCD.L) has a higher volatility of 8.20% compared to Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD (CC1U.L) at 7.70%. This indicates that HMCD.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CC1U.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


HMCD.LCC1U.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.20%

7.70%

+0.50%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.70%

15.53%

-0.83%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.13%

23.03%

-2.90%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

29.19%

26.94%

+2.25%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

26.18%

24.25%

+1.93%

HMCD.L vs. CC1U.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

HMCD.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than CC1U.L's 0.45% expense ratio.


Dividends

HMCD.L vs. CC1U.L - Dividend Comparison

HMCD.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.15%, while CC1U.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CC1U.L
Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
HMCD.L
HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF
2.15%2.25%2.20%2.08%1.95%1.31%0.86%1.59%1.46%0.75%2.07%2.95%

Frequently Asked Questions


HMCD.L and CC1U.L have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

HMCD.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for CC1U.L.

Both ETFs track MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: HSBC and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for HMCD.L and 0.45% for CC1U.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for HMCD.L and CC1U.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