PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
HMCH.L vs. HMWD.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

HMCH.L vs. HMWD.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCH.L) and HSBC MSCI World UCITS ETF (HMWD.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

HMCH.L is traded in GBp, while HMWD.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the HMWD.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HMCH.L achieves a -7.28% return, which is significantly lower than HMWD.L's 10.33% return. Over the past 10 years, HMCH.L has underperformed HMWD.L with an annualized return of 5.59%, while HMWD.L has yielded a comparatively higher 14.09% annualized return.


HMCH.L

1D
-0.65%
1M
-1.85%
YTD
-7.28%
6M
-8.93%
1Y
5.82%
3Y*
7.83%
5Y*
-4.14%
10Y*
5.59%

HMWD.L

1D
0.09%
1M
5.07%
YTD
10.33%
6M
10.30%
1Y
27.37%
3Y*
17.84%
5Y*
13.14%
10Y*
14.09%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

HMCH.L vs. HMWD.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
HMCH.L
HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF
-7.28%22.87%20.73%-16.33%-13.40%-21.06%24.96%17.80%-14.28%40.24%
HMWD.L
HSBC MSCI World UCITS ETF
10.33%12.43%21.21%18.40%-8.52%23.57%13.01%22.58%-3.49%12.48%

Correlation

The correlation between HMCH.L and HMWD.L is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.38

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

0.31

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

0.33

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

0.48

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 31, 2011

0.51

The correlation between HMCH.L and HMWD.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.31 (3 years) to 0.51 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

HMCH.L vs. HMWD.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
HMCH.L
HMWD.L

Consumer Cyclical

26.1%
9.2%

Financial Services

19.2%
15.7%

Communication Services

18.4%
9.2%

Technology

10.7%
28.3%

Industrials

5.4%
11.5%

Basic Materials

5.3%
3.3%

Healthcare

5.1%
8.8%

Energy

3.5%
4.2%

Consumer Defensive

3.0%
5.3%

Utilities

1.7%
2.7%

Real Estate

1.7%
1.9%

Consumer Cyclical

HMCH.L
26.1%
HMWD.L
9.2%

Financial Services

HMCH.L
19.2%
HMWD.L
15.7%

Communication Services

HMCH.L
18.4%
HMWD.L
9.2%

Technology

HMCH.L
10.7%
HMWD.L
28.3%

Industrials

HMCH.L
5.4%
HMWD.L
11.5%

Basic Materials

HMCH.L
5.3%
HMWD.L
3.3%

Healthcare

HMCH.L
5.1%
HMWD.L
8.8%

Energy

HMCH.L
3.5%
HMWD.L
4.2%

Consumer Defensive

HMCH.L
3.0%
HMWD.L
5.3%

Utilities

HMCH.L
1.7%
HMWD.L
2.7%

Real Estate

HMCH.L
1.7%
HMWD.L
1.9%

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

HMCH.L vs. HMWD.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

HMCH.L
HMCH.L Risk / Return Rank: 1313
Overall Rank
HMCH.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1414
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HMCH.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1414
Sortino Ratio Rank
HMCH.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1414
Omega Ratio Rank
HMCH.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1313
Calmar Ratio Rank
HMCH.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1212
Martin Ratio Rank

HMWD.L
HMWD.L Risk / Return Rank: 6969
Overall Rank
HMWD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6868
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HMWD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
HMWD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6868
Omega Ratio Rank
HMWD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6464
Calmar Ratio Rank
HMWD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7272
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.

HMCH.L vs. HMWD.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCH.L) and HSBC MSCI World UCITS ETF (HMWD.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.


HMCH.LHMWD.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.03

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.67

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.07

1.44

-0.37

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.34

4.21

-3.88

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.71

15.84

-15.13

HMCH.L vs. HMWD.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HMCH.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.32, which is lower than the HMWD.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HMCH.L and HMWD.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


HMCH.LHMWD.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.32

2.34

-2.03

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.15

0.91

-1.06

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.22

0.91

-0.69

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.16

0.83

-0.67

Drawdowns

HMCH.L vs. HMWD.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HMCH.L drawdown since its inception was -56.50%, which is greater than HMWD.L's maximum drawdown of -26.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMCH.L and HMWD.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


HMCH.LHMWD.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-56.50%

-26.10%

-30.40%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.18%

-6.47%

-10.71%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.67%

-18.90%

-5.77%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-49.31%

-18.90%

-30.41%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-56.50%

-26.10%

-30.40%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-32.69%

-0.05%

-32.64%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-20.25%

-3.49%

-16.76%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.17%

1.72%

+6.45%

Volatility

HMCH.L vs. HMWD.L - Volatility Comparison

HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCH.L) has a higher volatility of 7.06% compared to HSBC MSCI World UCITS ETF (HMWD.L) at 3.47%. This indicates that HMCH.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HMWD.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


HMCH.LHMWD.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.06%

3.47%

+3.59%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.14%

8.87%

+4.27%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.44%

11.62%

+6.82%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

27.67%

14.41%

+13.26%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.21%

15.49%

+9.72%

HMCH.L vs. HMWD.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

HMCH.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than HMWD.L's 0.15% expense ratio.


Dividends

HMCH.L vs. HMWD.L - Dividend Comparison

HMCH.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.15%, more than HMWD.L's 1.17% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
HMCH.L
HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF
2.15%2.34%2.17%2.12%1.85%1.28%0.92%1.65%1.36%0.78%1.89%2.84%
HMWD.L
HSBC MSCI World UCITS ETF
1.17%1.24%1.43%1.57%1.79%1.31%1.44%1.91%2.23%1.81%2.00%1.93%

Frequently Asked Questions


HMCH.L and HMWD.L have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, HMWD.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

HMWD.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for HMCH.L.

HMCH.L is categorized as China Equities, while HMWD.L is Global Equities. HMCH.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while HMWD.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for HMCH.L and 0.15% for HMWD.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for HMCH.L and HMWD.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