HNSS.L vs. HMCA.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HNSS.L (HSBC Nasdaq Global Semiconductor UCITS ETF) and HMCA.L (HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HNSS.L is a Semiconductors fund tracking the Nasdaq Global Semiconductor Index, while HMCA.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, HNSS.L returned 59.57%/yr vs 8.45%/yr for HMCA.L. At a 0.22 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HNSS.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for HMCA.L.

Performance

HNSS.L vs. HMCA.L - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HNSS.L achieves a 97.02% return, which is significantly higher than HMCA.L's 9.35% return.

HNSS.L

• 1D: 1.61%
• 1M: 31.57%
• YTD: 97.02%
• 6M: 99.27%
• 1Y: 206.01%
• 3Y*: 59.57%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

HMCA.L

• 1D: 0.14%
• 1M: 2.79%
• YTD: 9.35%
• 6M: 12.47%
• 1Y: 38.67%
• 3Y*: 8.45%
• 5Y*: 0.16%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
HNSS.L HSBC Nasdaq Global Semiconductor UCITS ETF	97.02%	45.50%	19.96%	60.90%	-19.12%
HMCA.L HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF	9.35%	17.38%	13.48%	-18.58%	-12.60%

Correlation

The correlation between HNSS.L and HMCA.L is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.35
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 27, 2022	0.22

The correlation between HNSS.L and HMCA.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.20 (3 years) to 0.35 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

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

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

HNSS.L

HNSS.L Risk / Return Rank: 97
HNSS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
HNSS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
HNSS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 96
HNSS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
HNSS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 98

HMCA.L

HMCA.L Risk / Return Rank: 79
HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
HMCA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
HMCA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 75
HMCA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
HMCA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HSBC Nasdaq Global Semiconductor UCITS ETF (HNSS.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.

	HNSS.L	HMCA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	6.48	2.51	+3.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	6.28	3.34	+2.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.83	1.44	+0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	15.56	5.50	+10.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	53.42	15.66	+37.76
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current HNSS.L Sharpe Ratio is 6.48, which is higher than the HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HNSS.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	HNSS.L	HMCA.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.48	2.51	+3.97
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.01	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.37	0.28	+1.09

Drawdowns

HNSS.L vs. HMCA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HNSS.L drawdown since its inception was -36.83%, smaller than the maximum HMCA.L drawdown of -44.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HNSS.L and HMCA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	HNSS.L	HMCA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.83%	-44.23%	+7.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.16%	-7.00%	-6.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-36.83%	-26.19%	-10.64%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-41.62%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-9.73%	+9.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.56%	-17.97%	+8.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.84%	2.46%	+1.38%

Volatility

HNSS.L vs. HMCA.L - Volatility Comparison

HSBC Nasdaq Global Semiconductor UCITS ETF (HNSS.L) has a higher volatility of 13.37% compared to HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L) at 5.42%. This indicates that HNSS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HMCA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HNSS.L	HMCA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.37%	5.42%	+7.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.40%	10.37%	+14.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.66%	15.35%	+16.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.10%	21.22%	+8.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.10%	22.88%	+7.22%

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

HNSS.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than HMCA.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

HNSS.L vs. HMCA.L - Dividend Comparison

HNSS.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while HMCA.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.67%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
HMCA.L HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF	1.67%	1.76%	1.97%	2.20%	1.76%	1.09%	0.88%	1.78%	0.29%
HNSS.L HSBC Nasdaq Global Semiconductor UCITS ETF	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 HNSS.L and HMCA.L in my portfolio?

HNSS.L and HMCA.L have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, HNSS.L or HMCA.L?

On fees, HMCA.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, HNSS.L or HMCA.L?

HMCA.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for HNSS.L.

What is the main difference between HNSS.L and HMCA.L?

HNSS.L is categorized as Semiconductors, while HMCA.L is China Equities. HNSS.L tracks Nasdaq Global Semiconductor Index, while HMCA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for HNSS.L and 0.30% for HMCA.L.