HMCD.L vs. FXC.AS

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCD.L) and iShares China Large Cap UCITS ETF (FXC.AS).

HMCD.L and FXC.AS are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. HMCD.L is a passively managed fund by HSBC that tracks the performance of the MSCI China NR USD. It was launched on Jan 26, 2011. FXC.AS is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI China NR USD. It was launched on Oct 21, 2004. Both HMCD.L and FXC.AS are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

HMCD.L vs. FXC.AS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCD.L) and iShares China Large Cap UCITS ETF (FXC.AS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

HMCD.L vs. FXC.AS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
HMCD.L HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF	-6.72%	31.58%	18.68%	-11.51%	-22.53%	-22.09%	29.32%	21.59%	-18.94%	54.07%
FXC.AS iShares China Large Cap UCITS ETF	-7.06%	29.43%	30.17%	-13.04%	-21.27%	-19.24%	10.24%	13.56%	-11.38%	36.26%

Different Trading Currencies

HMCD.L is traded in USD, while FXC.AS is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the FXC.AS 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 -6.72% return, which is significantly higher than FXC.AS's -7.06% return. Over the past 10 years, HMCD.L has outperformed FXC.AS with an annualized return of 5.01%, while FXC.AS has yielded a comparatively lower 3.44% annualized return.

HMCD.L

• 1D: 1.60%
• 1M: -3.47%
• YTD: -6.72%
• 6M: -13.90%
• 1Y: 5.22%
• 3Y*: 7.01%
• 5Y*: -5.19%
• 10Y*: 5.01%

FXC.AS

• 1D: 0.75%
• 1M: -2.64%
• YTD: -7.06%
• 6M: -12.69%
• 1Y: 2.09%
• 3Y*: 9.35%
• 5Y*: -3.25%
• 10Y*: 3.44%

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

HMCD.L vs. FXC.AS - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

FXC.AS

iShares China Large Cap UCITS ETF

HMCD.L

HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF

Return for Risk

HMCD.L vs. FXC.AS — 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: 18
HMCD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
HMCD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
HMCD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 17
HMCD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
HMCD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 18

FXC.AS

FXC.AS Risk / Return Rank: 13
FXC.AS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
FXC.AS Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
FXC.AS Omega Ratio Rank: 7
FXC.AS Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
FXC.AS Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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. FXC.AS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCD.L) and iShares China Large Cap UCITS ETF (FXC.AS). 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	FXC.AS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.23	0.09	+0.14
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.47	0.27	+0.19
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.04	+0.02
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.36	0.84	-0.49
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	0.93	2.38	-1.46
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. FXC.AS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HMCD.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.23, which is higher than the FXC.AS Sharpe Ratio of 0.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HMCD.L and FXC.AS, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	HMCD.L	FXC.AS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.23	0.09	+0.14
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.18	-0.11	-0.07
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.19	0.13	+0.06
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.12	0.11	+0.01

Correlation

The correlation between HMCD.L and FXC.AS is 0.88, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

HMCD.L vs. FXC.AS - Dividend Comparison

HMCD.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.14%, less than FXC.AS's 2.23% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
HMCD.L HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF	2.14%	2.25%	2.20%	2.08%	1.95%	1.31%	0.86%	1.59%	1.46%	0.75%	2.07%	2.95%
FXC.AS iShares China Large Cap UCITS ETF	2.23%	2.07%	2.48%	2.68%	2.53%	2.10%	2.93%	2.74%	3.48%	2.83%	2.62%	2.94%

Drawdowns

HMCD.L vs. FXC.AS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HMCD.L drawdown since its inception was -62.46%, smaller than the maximum FXC.AS drawdown of -71.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMCD.L and FXC.AS.

Drawdown Indicators

	HMCD.L	FXC.AS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.46%	-66.56%	+4.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.95%	-15.92%	-1.03%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-56.34%	-48.37%	-7.97%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-62.46%	-53.70%	-8.76%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-34.66%	-22.81%	-11.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-24.20%	-25.54%	+1.34%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.52%	5.25%	+1.27%

Volatility

HMCD.L vs. FXC.AS - Volatility Comparison

HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCD.L) has a higher volatility of 6.69% compared to iShares China Large Cap UCITS ETF (FXC.AS) at 5.73%. This indicates that HMCD.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FXC.AS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HMCD.L	FXC.AS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.69%	5.73%	+0.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.05%	13.28%	+0.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.24%	22.35%	-0.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.07%	29.69%	-0.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.09%	26.06%	+0.03%