HMWO.L vs. HMCA.L
HMWO.L (HSBC MSCI World UCITS ETF) and HMCA.L (HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HMWO.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, HMWO.L returned 11.42%/yr vs 0.05%/yr for HMCA.L. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HMWO.L charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for HMCA.L.
Performance
HMWO.L vs. HMCA.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
HMWO.L is traded in GBp, while HMCA.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the HMCA.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, HMWO.L achieves a 9.53% return, which is significantly higher than HMCA.L's 8.77% return.
HMWO.L
- 1D
- 0.16%
- 1M
- 5.13%
- YTD
- 9.53%
- 6M
- 9.79%
- 1Y
- 25.75%
- 3Y*
- 16.04%
- 5Y*
- 11.42%
- 10Y*
- 12.15%
HMCA.L
- 1D
- -0.53%
- 1M
- 1.89%
- YTD
- 8.77%
- 6M
- 11.73%
- 1Y
- 37.20%
- 3Y*
- 8.50%
- 5Y*
- 0.05%
- 10Y*
- —
HMWO.L vs. HMCA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HMWO.L HSBC MSCI World UCITS ETF | 9.53% | 11.10% | 19.31% | 15.79% | -10.00% | 22.25% | 10.57% | 20.88% | -9.99% |
HMCA.L HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF | 8.77% | 17.38% | 13.48% | -18.58% | -17.12% | 4.17% | 39.06% | 30.18% | -12.02% |
Correlation
The correlation between HMWO.L and HMCA.L is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.31 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.20 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 30, 2018 | 0.35 |
The correlation between HMWO.L and HMCA.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.20 (3 years) to 0.35 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
HMWO.L vs. HMCA.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
HMWO.L
HMCA.L
Technology
Financial Services
Industrials
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Healthcare
Consumer Defensive
Energy
Basic Materials
Utilities
Real Estate
Technology
HMWO.L
HMCA.L
Financial Services
HMWO.L
HMCA.L
Industrials
HMWO.L
HMCA.L
Communication Services
HMWO.L
HMCA.L
Consumer Cyclical
HMWO.L
HMCA.L
Healthcare
HMWO.L
HMCA.L
Consumer Defensive
HMWO.L
HMCA.L
Energy
HMWO.L
HMCA.L
Basic Materials
HMWO.L
HMCA.L
Utilities
HMWO.L
HMCA.L
Real Estate
HMWO.L
HMCA.L
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
HMWO.L vs. HMCA.L — Risk / Return Rank
HMWO.L
HMCA.L
HMWO.L vs. HMCA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HSBC MSCI World UCITS ETF (HMWO.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.
| HMWO.L | HMCA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.08 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.22 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.47 | 1.43 | +0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.82 | 5.29 | -1.47 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 15.06 | 15.02 | +0.03 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| HMWO.L | HMCA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.50 | 2.42 | +0.08 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.86 | 0.00 | +0.86 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.84 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.72 | 0.28 | +0.44 |
Drawdowns
HMWO.L vs. HMCA.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum HMWO.L drawdown since its inception was -25.48%, smaller than the maximum HMCA.L drawdown of -44.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMWO.L and HMCA.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| HMWO.L | HMCA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -25.48% | -44.23% | +18.75% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.71% | -7.00% | +0.29% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.01% | -26.19% | +7.18% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -19.01% | -41.62% | +22.61% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -25.48% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.13% | -10.21% | +10.08% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.07% | -17.96% | +13.89% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.71% | 2.47% | -0.76% |
Volatility
HMWO.L vs. HMCA.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for HSBC MSCI World UCITS ETF (HMWO.L) is 2.54%, while HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L) has a volatility of 5.46%. This indicates that HMWO.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
| HMWO.L | HMCA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.54% | 5.46% | -2.92% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.34% | 10.35% | -3.01% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.26% | 15.33% | -5.07% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.28% | 21.22% | -7.94% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 14.47% | 22.88% | -8.41% |
HMWO.L vs. HMCA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
HMWO.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than HMCA.L's 0.30% expense ratio.
Dividends
HMWO.L vs. HMCA.L - Dividend Comparison
HMWO.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.01%, less than HMCA.L's 1.68% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
HMWO.L HSBC MSCI World UCITS ETF | 0.01% | 0.01% | 0.01% | 0.02% | 0.02% | 0.01% | 0.02% | 0.02% | 0.02% | 0.02% | 0.02% | 0.02% |
Frequently Asked Questions
HMWO.L and HMCA.L have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, HMWO.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
HMWO.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for HMCA.L.
HMWO.L is categorized as Global Equities, while HMCA.L is China Equities. HMWO.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD, while HMCA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for HMWO.L and 0.30% for HMCA.L.
Find the right allocation for HMWO.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