HMCD.L vs. CNAL.L
HMCD.L (HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF) and CNAL.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) are both China Equities funds - HMCD.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD while CNAL.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, HMCD.L returned -5.15%/yr vs -0.98%/yr for CNAL.L. At a 0.29 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HMCD.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for CNAL.L.
Performance
HMCD.L vs. CNAL.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
HMCD.L is traded in USD, while CNAL.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the CNAL.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, HMCD.L achieves a -7.16% return, which is significantly lower than CNAL.L's 9.41% 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%
CNAL.L
- 1D
- -0.05%
- 1M
- 2.04%
- YTD
- 9.41%
- 6M
- 13.62%
- 1Y
- 38.08%
- 3Y*
- 11.32%
- 5Y*
- -0.98%
- 10Y*
- —
HMCD.L vs. CNAL.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HMCD.L HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF | -7.16% | 31.58% | 18.68% | -11.51% | -22.53% | -22.09% | 29.32% | 21.59% | -22.58% |
CNAL.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR | 9.41% | 25.59% | 15.09% | -14.65% | -27.44% | 6.34% | 40.74% | 34.41% | -28.74% |
Correlation
The correlation between HMCD.L and CNAL.L is 0.68, 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 | 0.68 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.47 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.35 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 18, 2018 | 0.29 |
Over the past year, HMCD.L and CNAL.L have become more correlated (0.68) than their long-term average of 0.29, meaning their price movements have been converging.
HMCD.L vs. CNAL.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
HMCD.L
CNAL.L
Consumer Cyclical
Financial Services
Communication Services
Technology
Basic Materials
Healthcare
Industrials
Energy
Consumer Defensive
Utilities
Real Estate
Consumer Cyclical
HMCD.L
CNAL.L
Financial Services
HMCD.L
CNAL.L
Communication Services
HMCD.L
CNAL.L
Technology
HMCD.L
CNAL.L
Basic Materials
HMCD.L
CNAL.L
Healthcare
HMCD.L
CNAL.L
Industrials
HMCD.L
CNAL.L
Energy
HMCD.L
CNAL.L
Consumer Defensive
HMCD.L
CNAL.L
Utilities
HMCD.L
CNAL.L
Real Estate
HMCD.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
HMCD.L vs. CNAL.L — Risk / Return Rank
HMCD.L
CNAL.L
HMCD.L vs. CNAL.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCD.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.
| HMCD.L | CNAL.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.98 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.57 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.07 | 1.40 | -0.33 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.40 | 5.08 | -4.68 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.84 | 15.27 | -14.43 |
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
| HMCD.L | CNAL.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.34 | 2.32 | -1.98 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.18 | -0.07 | -0.11 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.19 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.12 | 0.30 | -0.19 |
Drawdowns
HMCD.L vs. CNAL.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum HMCD.L drawdown since its inception was -62.46%, which is greater than CNAL.L's maximum drawdown of -49.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMCD.L and CNAL.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| HMCD.L | CNAL.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -62.46% | -49.84% | -12.62% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -17.07% | -7.46% | -9.61% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -25.60% | -28.64% | +3.04% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -56.17% | -44.89% | -11.28% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -62.46% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -34.97% | -13.75% | -21.22% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -24.30% | -25.26% | +0.96% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.24% | 2.49% | +5.75% |
Volatility
HMCD.L vs. CNAL.L - Volatility Comparison
HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCD.L) has a higher volatility of 8.20% compared to Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAL.L) at 6.15%. This indicates that HMCD.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CNAL.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| HMCD.L | CNAL.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.20% | 6.15% | +2.05% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.70% | 11.38% | +3.32% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.13% | 16.33% | +3.80% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 29.19% | 32.03% | -2.84% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 26.18% | 43.35% | -17.17% |
HMCD.L vs. CNAL.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
HMCD.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than CNAL.L's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
HMCD.L vs. CNAL.L - Dividend Comparison
HMCD.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.15%, while CNAL.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% | 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 CNAL.L have a correlation of 0.68, 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 0.35% for CNAL.L.
HMCD.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while CNAL.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: HSBC and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for HMCD.L and 0.35% for CNAL.L.
Find the right allocation for HMCD.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