PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IASH.L vs. CNAA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IASH.L vs. CNAA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares MSCI China A UCITS USD (IASH.L) and Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IASH.L achieves a 8.70% return, which is significantly lower than CNAA.L's 9.32% return. Over the past 10 years, IASH.L has outperformed CNAA.L with an annualized return of 7.04%, while CNAA.L has yielded a comparatively lower 5.89% annualized return.


IASH.L

1D
-0.75%
1M
2.15%
YTD
8.70%
6M
11.91%
1Y
36.97%
3Y*
8.52%
5Y*
-0.10%
10Y*
7.04%

CNAA.L

1D
-0.64%
1M
2.12%
YTD
9.32%
6M
12.02%
1Y
37.60%
3Y*
8.62%
5Y*
-0.07%
10Y*
5.89%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IASH.L vs. CNAA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IASH.L
iShares MSCI China A UCITS USD
8.70%17.67%12.92%-18.83%-17.27%4.48%37.65%29.94%-21.35%17.95%
CNAA.L
Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR
9.32%17.14%12.85%-18.49%-17.18%4.19%38.58%31.66%-26.27%11.57%

Correlation

The correlation between IASH.L and CNAA.L is 0.95, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


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

0.95

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

0.95

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

0.94

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

0.89

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 17, 2015

0.85

The correlation between IASH.L and CNAA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

IASH.L vs. CNAA.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
IASH.L
CNAA.L

Technology

31.0%
27.2%

Financial Services

17.8%
18.8%

Industrials

15.5%
15.7%

Basic Materials

11.4%
12.4%

Consumer Defensive

6.7%
7.4%

Consumer Cyclical

5.4%
5.6%

Healthcare

3.9%
4.3%

Utilities

3.2%
3.2%

Energy

3.2%
3.4%

Communication Services

1.3%
1.4%

Real Estate

0.6%
0.6%

Technology

IASH.L
31.0%
CNAA.L
27.2%

Financial Services

IASH.L
17.8%
CNAA.L
18.8%

Industrials

IASH.L
15.5%
CNAA.L
15.7%

Basic Materials

IASH.L
11.4%
CNAA.L
12.4%

Consumer Defensive

IASH.L
6.7%
CNAA.L
7.4%

Consumer Cyclical

IASH.L
5.4%
CNAA.L
5.6%

Healthcare

IASH.L
3.9%
CNAA.L
4.3%

Utilities

IASH.L
3.2%
CNAA.L
3.2%

Energy

IASH.L
3.2%
CNAA.L
3.4%

Communication Services

IASH.L
1.3%
CNAA.L
1.4%

Real Estate

IASH.L
0.6%
CNAA.L
0.6%

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

IASH.L vs. CNAA.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

IASH.L
IASH.L Risk / Return Rank: 7777
Overall Rank
IASH.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7474
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IASH.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
IASH.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
IASH.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
IASH.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank

CNAA.L
CNAA.L Risk / Return Rank: 7272
Overall Rank
CNAA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNAA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNAA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
CNAA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNAA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
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.

IASH.L vs. CNAA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China A UCITS USD (IASH.L) and Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.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.


IASH.LCNAA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.09

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.14

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.42

1.41

+0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.48

5.33

+0.14

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.07

14.88

+0.18

IASH.L vs. CNAA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IASH.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.36, which is comparable to the CNAA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IASH.L and CNAA.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


IASH.LCNAA.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.36

2.27

+0.09

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.00

-0.00

0.00

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.33

0.26

+0.07

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.09

0.28

-0.19

Drawdowns

IASH.L vs. CNAA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IASH.L drawdown since its inception was -48.39%, roughly equal to the maximum CNAA.L drawdown of -50.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IASH.L and CNAA.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IASH.LCNAA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-48.39%

-50.93%

+2.54%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.72%

-7.02%

+0.30%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.77%

-26.66%

+0.89%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-42.23%

-42.50%

+0.27%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-44.67%

-45.04%

+0.37%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-10.73%

-11.17%

+0.44%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-24.71%

-25.94%

+1.23%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.45%

2.52%

-0.07%

Volatility

IASH.L vs. CNAA.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI China A UCITS USD (IASH.L) and Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L) have volatilities of 5.76% and 5.85%, 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IASH.LCNAA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.76%

5.85%

-0.09%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.68%

11.80%

-1.12%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.60%

16.50%

-0.90%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.27%

21.53%

-0.26%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.78%

22.43%

+0.35%

IASH.L vs. CNAA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

IASH.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than CNAA.L's 0.35% expense ratio.


Dividends

IASH.L vs. CNAA.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither IASH.L nor CNAA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.95, IASH.L and CNAA.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.

On fees, CNAA.L is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CNAA.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for IASH.L.

Both ETFs track MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for IASH.L and 0.35% for CNAA.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IASH.L and CNAA.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