PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

IASH.L vs. HMCA.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IASH.L (iShares MSCI China A UCITS USD) and HMCA.L (HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, from iShares and HSBC respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IASH.L returned 0.05%/yr vs 0.16%/yr for HMCA.L. With a 0.98 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. IASH.L charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for HMCA.L.

Performance

IASH.L vs. HMCA.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 HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

IASH.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

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with IASH.L having a 9.51% return and HMCA.L slightly lower at 9.35%.

IASH.L

1D
-0.06%
1M
3.10%
YTD
9.51%
6M
12.93%
1Y
38.65%
3Y*
8.41%
5Y*
0.05%
10Y*
7.12%

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)

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

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
IASH.L
iShares MSCI China A UCITS USD		9.51%17.67%12.92%-18.83%-17.27%4.48%37.65%29.94%-11.24%
HMCA.L
HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF		9.35%17.38%13.48%-18.58%-17.12%4.17%39.06%30.18%-12.02%

Correlation

The correlation between IASH.L and HMCA.L is 0.98 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

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

0.98

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

0.99

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

0.99

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

0.98

The correlation between IASH.L and HMCA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.98 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors
IASH.L
HMCA.L

Technology

31.0%
32.1%

Financial Services

17.8%
17.5%

Industrials

15.5%
15.4%

Basic Materials

11.4%
11.2%

Consumer Defensive

6.7%
6.6%

Consumer Cyclical

5.4%
5.2%

Healthcare

3.9%
3.8%

Utilities

3.2%
3.3%

Energy

3.2%
3.2%

Communication Services

1.3%
1.3%

Real Estate

0.6%
0.5%

Technology

IASH.L
31.0%
HMCA.L
32.1%

Financial Services

IASH.L
17.8%
HMCA.L
17.5%

Industrials

IASH.L
15.5%
HMCA.L
15.4%

Basic Materials

IASH.L
11.4%
HMCA.L
11.2%

Consumer Defensive

IASH.L
6.7%
HMCA.L
6.6%

Consumer Cyclical

IASH.L
5.4%
HMCA.L
5.2%

Healthcare

IASH.L
3.9%
HMCA.L
3.8%

Utilities

IASH.L
3.2%
HMCA.L
3.3%

Energy

IASH.L
3.2%
HMCA.L
3.2%

Communication Services

IASH.L
1.3%
HMCA.L
1.3%

Real Estate

IASH.L
0.6%
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.

iShares MSCI China A UCITS USD

HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF

Often compared with IASH.L:
IASH.L vs. ICGA.DEIASH.L vs. CNYAIASH.L vs. CHIN.DEIASH.L vs. EMIM.LIASH.L vs. HSTC.LIASH.L vs. XCH.TOIASH.L vs. IWDA.AS
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

IASH.L vs. HMCA.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: 7979
Overall Rank
IASH.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IASH.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
IASH.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
IASH.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
IASH.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8080
Martin Ratio Rank
HMCA.L
HMCA.L Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7777
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8080
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. HMCA.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 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.

IASH.LHMCA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.47
2.51

-0.04

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.31
3.34

-0.03

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.44

1.44

0.00

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.73

5.50

+0.23

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.80

15.66

+0.14

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

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

The current IASH.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.47, which is comparable to the HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IASH.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

IASH.LHMCA.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.47

2.51

-0.04

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.00

0.01

-0.01

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.33

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.09

0.28

-0.19

Drawdowns

IASH.L vs. HMCA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IASH.L drawdown since its inception was -48.39%, which is greater than HMCA.L's maximum drawdown of -44.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IASH.L and HMCA.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IASH.LHMCA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-48.39%

-44.23%

-4.16%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.72%

-7.00%

+0.28%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.77%

-26.19%

+0.42%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-42.23%

-41.62%

-0.61%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-44.67%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-10.06%

-9.73%

-0.33%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-24.72%

-17.97%

-6.75%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.44%

2.46%

-0.02%

Volatility

IASH.L vs. HMCA.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI China A UCITS USD (IASH.L) and HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L) have volatilities of 5.69% and 5.42%, 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.LHMCA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.69%

5.42%

+0.27%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.68%

10.37%

+0.31%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.61%

15.35%

+0.26%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.27%

21.22%

+0.05%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.79%

22.88%

-0.09%

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

IASH.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than HMCA.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

IASH.L vs. HMCA.L - Dividend Comparison

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

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
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%
IASH.L
iShares MSCI China A UCITS USD		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

With a correlation of 0.98, IASH.L and HMCA.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, HMCA.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

HMCA.L is cheaper with a 0.30% 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 HSBC. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for IASH.L and 0.30% for HMCA.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IASH.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