HMCD.L vs. LCCN.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HMCD.L (HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF) and LCCN.L (Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China NR USD, from HSBC and Amundi respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, HMCD.L returned -5.15%/yr vs -4.86%/yr for LCCN.L. With a 0.99 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. HMCD.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for LCCN.L.

Performance

HMCD.L vs. LCCN.L - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with HMCD.L having a -7.16% return and LCCN.L slightly higher at -6.92%.

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%

LCCN.L

• 1D: -2.49%
• 1M: -2.99%
• YTD: -6.92%
• 6M: -7.90%
• 1Y: 7.28%
• 3Y*: 10.59%
• 5Y*: -4.86%
• 10Y*: —

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

HMCD.L vs. LCCN.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%	1.86%
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc	-6.92%	32.04%	19.37%	-11.61%	-22.21%	-21.87%	29.79%	21.86%	1.99%

Correlation

The correlation between HMCD.L and LCCN.L is 0.99 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.99
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.99
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.00
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2018	0.99

The correlation between HMCD.L and LCCN.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.99 to 1.00 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors	HMCD.L	LCCN.L
Consumer Cyclical	26.5%	26.4%
Financial Services	19.1%	19.1%
Communication Services	18.8%	18.8%
Technology	9.5%	9.6%
Basic Materials	5.5%	5.5%
Healthcare	5.3%	5.4%
Industrials	5.0%	5.0%
Energy	3.7%	3.7%
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	3.2%
Utilities	1.7%	1.7%
Real Estate	1.5%	1.5%

Return for Risk

HMCD.L vs. LCCN.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: 14
HMCD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
HMCD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
HMCD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 14
HMCD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
HMCD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 13

LCCN.L

LCCN.L Risk / Return Rank: 14
LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
LCCN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
LCCN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 14
LCCN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
LCCN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 13

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. LCCN.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 MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.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	LCCN.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.34	0.36	-0.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.63	0.65	-0.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.07	1.08	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.40	0.43	-0.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.84	0.90	-0.06
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. LCCN.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HMCD.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.34, which is comparable to the LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HMCD.L and LCCN.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

	HMCD.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34	0.36	-0.02
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.18	-0.17	-0.01
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	0.12	0.00

Drawdowns

HMCD.L vs. LCCN.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HMCD.L drawdown since its inception was -62.46%, roughly equal to the maximum LCCN.L drawdown of -62.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMCD.L and LCCN.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	HMCD.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.46%	-62.38%	-0.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.07%	-16.98%	-0.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.60%	-25.52%	-0.08%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-56.17%	-56.10%	-0.07%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-62.46%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-34.97%	-33.99%	-0.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-24.30%	-30.16%	+5.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.24%	8.10%	+0.14%

Volatility

HMCD.L vs. LCCN.L - Volatility Comparison

HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCD.L) and Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) have volatilities of 8.20% and 8.05%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HMCD.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.20%	8.05%	+0.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.70%	14.69%	+0.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.13%	20.15%	-0.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.19%	29.34%	-0.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.18%	27.89%	-1.71%

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

HMCD.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than LCCN.L's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

HMCD.L vs. LCCN.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - 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%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HMCD.L and LCCN.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.99, HMCD.L and LCCN.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, HMCD.L or LCCN.L?

On fees, LCCN.L is cheaper at 0.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, HMCD.L or LCCN.L?

LCCN.L is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for HMCD.L.

What is the main difference between HMCD.L and LCCN.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 0.29% for LCCN.L.