PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
HMCD.L vs. CNUA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

HMCD.L vs. CNUA.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

HMCD.L (HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF) and CNUA.L (UBS ETF (IE) MSCI China A SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc) are both China Equities funds - HMCD.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD while CNUA.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, HMCD.L returned -5.16%/yr vs 2.67%/yr for CNUA.L. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.30% expense ratio.

Performance

HMCD.L vs. CNUA.L - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

HMCD.L is traded in USD, while CNUA.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the CNUA.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 -7.19% return, which is significantly lower than CNUA.L's 11.56% return.

HMCD.L

1D
-0.03%
1M
-2.72%
YTD
-7.19%
6M
-8.55%
1Y
4.76%
3Y*
10.66%
5Y*
-5.16%
10Y*
4.81%

CNUA.L

1D
-0.63%
1M
2.03%
YTD
11.56%
6M
16.02%
1Y
42.88%
3Y*
15.74%
5Y*
2.67%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
HMCD.L
HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF		-7.19%31.58%18.68%-11.51%-22.53%-22.09%33.45%
CNUA.L
UBS ETF (IE) MSCI China A SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc		11.56%32.26%14.61%-11.91%-24.67%9.25%48.43%

Correlation

The correlation between HMCD.L and CNUA.L is 0.67, 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

0.67

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

0.66

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

0.68

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2020

0.68

The correlation between HMCD.L and CNUA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors
HMCD.L
CNUA.L

Consumer Cyclical

26.5%
5.6%

Financial Services

19.1%
18.8%

Communication Services

18.8%
1.4%

Technology

9.5%
27.2%

Basic Materials

5.5%
12.4%

Healthcare

5.3%
4.3%

Industrials

5.0%
15.7%

Energy

3.7%
3.4%

Consumer Defensive

3.2%
7.4%

Utilities

1.7%
3.2%

Real Estate

1.5%
0.6%

Consumer Cyclical

HMCD.L
26.5%
CNUA.L
5.6%

Financial Services

HMCD.L
19.1%
CNUA.L
18.8%

Communication Services

HMCD.L
18.8%
CNUA.L
1.4%

Technology

HMCD.L
9.5%
CNUA.L
27.2%

Basic Materials

HMCD.L
5.5%
CNUA.L
12.4%

Healthcare

HMCD.L
5.3%
CNUA.L
4.3%

Industrials

HMCD.L
5.0%
CNUA.L
15.7%

Energy

HMCD.L
3.7%
CNUA.L
3.4%

Consumer Defensive

HMCD.L
3.2%
CNUA.L
7.4%

Utilities

HMCD.L
1.7%
CNUA.L
3.2%

Real Estate

HMCD.L
1.5%
CNUA.L
0.6%

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 UCITS ETF

UBS ETF (IE) MSCI China A SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc

Often compared with HMCD.L:
HMCD.L vs. HMCH.LHMCD.L vs. IDFX.LHMCD.L vs. FLXC.LHMCD.L vs. FXC.ASHMCD.L vs. C300.LHMCD.L vs. FXIHMCD.L vs. CEBG.L
Often compared with CNUA.L:
CNUA.L vs. JRCD.LCNUA.L vs. FRCH.LCNUA.L vs. ASIL.LCNUA.L vs. C500.LCNUA.L vs. C300.LCNUA.L vs. JRCE.LCNUA.L vs. CA3S.L

Return for Risk

HMCD.L vs. CNUA.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: 1212
Overall Rank
HMCD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1212
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HMCD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1313
Sortino Ratio Rank
HMCD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1313
Omega Ratio Rank
HMCD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1212
Calmar Ratio Rank
HMCD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1212
Martin Ratio Rank
CNUA.L
CNUA.L Risk / Return Rank: 8888
Overall Rank
CNUA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNUA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8585
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNUA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8484
Omega Ratio Rank
CNUA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNUA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8989
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. CNUA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCD.L) and UBS ETF (IE) MSCI China A SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (CNUA.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.LCNUA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.24
2.62

-2.38

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.48
3.56

-3.08

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.06

1.46

-0.40

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.28

6.03

-5.75

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.57

18.66

-18.09

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

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

The current HMCD.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.24, which is lower than the CNUA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HMCD.L and CNUA.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.LCNUA.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.24

2.62

-2.38

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.18

0.12

-0.29

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.18

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.12

0.41

-0.30

Drawdowns

HMCD.L vs. CNUA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HMCD.L drawdown since its inception was -62.46%, which is greater than CNUA.L's maximum drawdown of -43.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMCD.L and CNUA.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

HMCD.LCNUA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-62.46%

-43.75%

-18.71%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.07%

-7.08%

-9.99%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.60%

-22.00%

-3.60%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-56.17%

-41.06%

-15.11%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-62.46%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-34.99%

-2.89%

-32.10%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-24.30%

-19.47%

-4.83%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.30%

2.29%

+6.01%

Volatility

HMCD.L vs. CNUA.L - Volatility Comparison

HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCD.L) has a higher volatility of 8.19% compared to UBS ETF (IE) MSCI China A SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (CNUA.L) at 6.41%. This indicates that HMCD.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CNUA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

HMCD.LCNUA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.19%

6.41%

+1.78%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.68%

11.33%

+3.35%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.11%

16.30%

+3.81%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

29.19%

22.82%

+6.37%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

26.18%

24.49%

+1.69%

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

Both HMCD.L and CNUA.L have an expense ratio of 0.30%.

Dividends

HMCD.L vs. CNUA.L - Dividend Comparison

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

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CNUA.L
UBS ETF (IE) MSCI China A SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc		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 CNUA.L have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Both ETFs have the same 0.30% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

HMCD.L and CNUA.L have the same expense ratio: 0.30% per year.

HMCD.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while CNUA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: HSBC and UBS.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for HMCD.L and CNUA.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