PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
HMWD.L vs. HMCA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

HMWD.L vs. HMCA.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

HMWD.L (HSBC MSCI World UCITS ETF) and HMCA.L (HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HMWD.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD, while HMCA.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, HMWD.L returned 11.93%/yr vs -1.00%/yr for HMCA.L. At a 0.38 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HMWD.L charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for HMCA.L.

Performance

HMWD.L vs. HMCA.L - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HMWD.L achieves a 9.88% return, which is significantly higher than HMCA.L's 8.51% return.

HMWD.L

1D
0.09%
1M
2.52%
YTD
9.88%
6M
10.82%
1Y
25.80%
3Y*
20.87%
5Y*
11.93%
10Y*
13.25%

HMCA.L

1D
-0.48%
1M
-1.02%
YTD
8.51%
6M
11.15%
1Y
35.17%
3Y*
11.29%
5Y*
-1.00%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
HMWD.L
HSBC MSCI World UCITS ETF		9.88%21.06%19.13%24.63%-18.24%22.41%16.43%27.43%-11.93%
HMCA.L
HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF		8.51%26.23%11.59%-14.28%-25.98%3.23%43.32%35.40%-14.49%

Correlation

The correlation between HMWD.L and HMCA.L is 0.36, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.36

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

0.27

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

0.30

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 30, 2018

0.38

The correlation between HMWD.L and HMCA.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.27 (3 years) to 0.38 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors
HMWD.L
HMCA.L

Technology

28.3%
32.1%

Financial Services

15.7%
17.5%

Industrials

11.5%
15.4%

Communication Services

9.2%
1.3%

Consumer Cyclical

9.2%
5.2%

Healthcare

8.8%
3.8%

Consumer Defensive

5.3%
6.6%

Energy

4.2%
3.2%

Basic Materials

3.3%
11.2%

Utilities

2.7%
3.3%

Real Estate

1.9%
0.5%

Technology

HMWD.L
28.3%
HMCA.L
32.1%

Financial Services

HMWD.L
15.7%
HMCA.L
17.5%

Industrials

HMWD.L
11.5%
HMCA.L
15.4%

Communication Services

HMWD.L
9.2%
HMCA.L
1.3%

Consumer Cyclical

HMWD.L
9.2%
HMCA.L
5.2%

Healthcare

HMWD.L
8.8%
HMCA.L
3.8%

Consumer Defensive

HMWD.L
5.3%
HMCA.L
6.6%

Energy

HMWD.L
4.2%
HMCA.L
3.2%

Basic Materials

HMWD.L
3.3%
HMCA.L
11.2%

Utilities

HMWD.L
2.7%
HMCA.L
3.3%

Real Estate

HMWD.L
1.9%
HMCA.L
0.5%

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 World UCITS ETF

HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF

Often compared with HMWD.L:
HMWD.L vs. VWRL.ASHMWD.L vs. IWDA.LHMWD.L vs. VDIV.DEHMWD.L vs. TRET.ASHMWD.L vs. VWCE.DEHMWD.L vs. VWRL.LHMWD.L vs. EIMI.L
Often compared with HMCA.L:
HMCA.L vs. NUCG.LHMCA.L vs. BCHS.LHMCA.L vs. HERG.LHMCA.L vs. UC04.LHMCA.L vs. LYPG.DEHMCA.L vs. CNYAHMCA.L vs. SPX5.L

Return for Risk

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
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
HMCA.L
HMCA.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
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.

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

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

HMWD.LHMCA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.19
2.21

-0.01

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.29
3.03

+0.26

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.40

1.38

+0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.14

4.77

-1.63

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.35

14.16

-0.81

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

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

The current HMWD.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.19, which is comparable to the HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HMWD.L and HMCA.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

HMWD.LHMCA.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.19

2.21

-0.01

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.77

-0.04

+0.81

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.83

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.74

0.28

+0.46

Drawdowns

HMWD.L vs. HMCA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HMWD.L drawdown since its inception was -34.03%, smaller than the maximum HMCA.L drawdown of -49.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMWD.L and HMCA.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

HMWD.LHMCA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.03%

-49.15%

+15.12%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.29%

-7.49%

-0.80%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.57%

-28.26%

+10.69%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.00%

-44.46%

+18.46%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.03%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.40%

-13.02%

+12.62%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.57%

-21.69%

+17.12%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.95%

2.53%

-0.58%

Volatility

HMWD.L vs. HMCA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for HSBC MSCI World UCITS ETF (HMWD.L) is 3.41%, while HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L) has a volatility of 6.23%. This indicates that HMWD.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HMCA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

HMWD.LHMCA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.41%

6.23%

-2.82%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.13%

11.24%

-2.11%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.87%

16.22%

-4.35%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.57%

22.71%

-7.14%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.85%

23.95%

-8.10%

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

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

Dividends

HMWD.L vs. HMCA.L - Dividend Comparison

HMWD.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.17%, less than HMCA.L's 1.68% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
HMCA.L
HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF		1.68%1.76%1.97%2.20%1.76%1.09%0.88%1.78%0.29%0.00%0.00%0.00%
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

HMWD.L and HMCA.L have a correlation of 0.36, 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 HMCA.L.

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

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for HMWD.L and HMCA.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