PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IFFF.L vs. LCAL.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IFFF.L vs. LCAL.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IFFF.L (iShares MSCI AC Far East ex-Japan UCITS ETF) and LCAL.L (Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds tracking the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, from iShares and Amundi respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IFFF.L returned 9.26%/yr vs 9.02%/yr for LCAL.L. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. IFFF.L charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for LCAL.L.

Performance

IFFF.L vs. LCAL.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares MSCI AC Far East ex-Japan UCITS ETF (IFFF.L) and Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc (LCAL.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

IFFF.L is traded in GBp, while LCAL.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the LCAL.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IFFF.L achieves a 37.38% return, which is significantly higher than LCAL.L's 30.19% return.

IFFF.L

1D
-1.94%
1M
9.15%
YTD
37.38%
6M
39.78%
1Y
73.61%
3Y*
25.44%
5Y*
9.26%
10Y*
11.86%

LCAL.L

1D
-1.65%
1M
8.07%
YTD
30.19%
6M
32.55%
1Y
58.76%
3Y*
22.81%
5Y*
9.02%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IFFF.L vs. LCAL.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
IFFF.L
iShares MSCI AC Far East ex-Japan UCITS ETF		37.38%30.76%13.56%-4.04%-12.39%-8.11%21.66%13.62%-8.18%
LCAL.L
Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc		30.19%24.10%13.67%0.95%-11.42%-4.08%24.20%14.12%-7.85%

Correlation

The correlation between IFFF.L and LCAL.L is 0.96 - 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

0.96

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

0.96

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

0.97

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 3, 2018

0.97

The correlation between IFFF.L and LCAL.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

IFFF.L vs. LCAL.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IFFF.L
LCAL.L

Technology

49.8%
45.2%

Financial Services

15.3%
16.4%

Consumer Cyclical

9.7%
10.5%

Industrials

7.3%
7.1%

Communication Services

7.0%
6.9%

Basic Materials

2.5%
3.0%

Healthcare

2.2%
3.8%

Real Estate

1.7%
1.3%

Consumer Defensive

1.7%
2.9%

Energy

1.4%
2.1%

Utilities

1.4%
1.0%

Technology

IFFF.L
49.8%
LCAL.L
45.2%

Financial Services

IFFF.L
15.3%
LCAL.L
16.4%

Consumer Cyclical

IFFF.L
9.7%
LCAL.L
10.5%

Industrials

IFFF.L
7.3%
LCAL.L
7.1%

Communication Services

IFFF.L
7.0%
LCAL.L
6.9%

Basic Materials

IFFF.L
2.5%
LCAL.L
3.0%

Healthcare

IFFF.L
2.2%
LCAL.L
3.8%

Real Estate

IFFF.L
1.7%
LCAL.L
1.3%

Consumer Defensive

IFFF.L
1.7%
LCAL.L
2.9%

Energy

IFFF.L
1.4%
LCAL.L
2.1%

Utilities

IFFF.L
1.4%
LCAL.L
1.0%

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 AC Far East ex-Japan UCITS ETF

Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc

Often compared with IFFF.L:
IFFF.L vs. XDEW.DEIFFF.L vs. VOOIFFF.L vs. VFEA.DEIFFF.L vs. IKOR.LIFFF.L vs. ASDV.LIFFF.L vs. XKS2.LIFFF.L vs. CP9U.L
Often compared with LCAL.L:
LCAL.L vs. SPYLCAL.L vs. IDAP.LLCAL.L vs. AUAD.LLCAL.L vs. KRWL.LLCAL.L vs. LAUU.LLCAL.L vs. CI2G.LLCAL.L vs. UC48.L

Return for Risk

IFFF.L vs. LCAL.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IFFF.L
IFFF.L Risk / Return Rank: 9494
Overall Rank
IFFF.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9595
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IFFF.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9494
Sortino Ratio Rank
IFFF.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9494
Omega Ratio Rank
IFFF.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
IFFF.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9292
Martin Ratio Rank
LCAL.L
LCAL.L Risk / Return Rank: 8989
Overall Rank
LCAL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9191
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LCAL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8989
Sortino Ratio Rank
LCAL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9090
Omega Ratio Rank
LCAL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
LCAL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8484
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.

IFFF.L vs. LCAL.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI AC Far East ex-Japan UCITS ETF (IFFF.L) and Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc (LCAL.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.

IFFF.LLCAL.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
3.81
3.16

+0.65

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
4.70
4.06

+0.64

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.67

1.57

+0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

7.09

5.03

+2.06

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

23.07

17.08

+5.99

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

IFFF.L vs. LCAL.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IFFF.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.81, which is comparable to the LCAL.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IFFF.L and LCAL.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

IFFF.LLCAL.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.81

3.16

+0.65

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.48

0.51

-0.03

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.62

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.46

0.49

-0.03

Drawdowns

IFFF.L vs. LCAL.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IFFF.L drawdown since its inception was -53.09%, which is greater than LCAL.L's maximum drawdown of -33.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IFFF.L and LCAL.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IFFF.LLCAL.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-53.09%

-33.83%

-19.26%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.33%

-11.62%

+1.29%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.69%

-17.61%

-2.08%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-34.37%

-28.34%

-6.03%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.63%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.83%

-2.72%

-0.11%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.36%

-12.58%

+0.22%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.18%

3.43%

-0.25%

Volatility

IFFF.L vs. LCAL.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI AC Far East ex-Japan UCITS ETF (IFFF.L) and Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc (LCAL.L) have volatilities of 8.45% and 8.53%, 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

IFFF.LLCAL.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.45%

8.53%

-0.08%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.02%

15.65%

+0.37%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.26%

18.54%

+0.72%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.16%

17.73%

+1.43%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.08%

19.02%

+0.06%

IFFF.L vs. LCAL.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

IFFF.L has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than LCAL.L's 0.12% expense ratio.

Dividends

IFFF.L vs. LCAL.L - Dividend Comparison

IFFF.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.06%, while LCAL.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IFFF.L
iShares MSCI AC Far East ex-Japan UCITS ETF		1.06%1.45%1.80%1.88%2.10%1.36%1.19%1.75%1.98%1.54%1.77%2.22%
LCAL.L
Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc		0.00%0.00%0.00%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 0.96, IFFF.L and LCAL.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, LCAL.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

LCAL.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for IFFF.L.

Both ETFs track MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for IFFF.L and 0.12% for LCAL.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IFFF.L and LCAL.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