LCAL.L vs. AASG.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LCAL.L (Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc) and AASG.L (Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Asia UCITS ETF USD) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds from Amundi tracking the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LCAL.L returned 9.38%/yr vs 9.38%/yr for AASG.L. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. LCAL.L charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for AASG.L.

Performance

LCAL.L vs. AASG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc (LCAL.L) and Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Asia UCITS ETF USD (AASG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with LCAL.L having a 32.38% return and AASG.L slightly higher at 32.89%.

LCAL.L

• 1D: -1.09%
• 1M: 12.92%
• YTD: 32.38%
• 6M: 35.00%
• 1Y: 63.67%
• 3Y*: 23.36%
• 5Y*: 9.38%
• 10Y*: —

AASG.L

• 1D: -0.95%
• 1M: 13.19%
• YTD: 32.89%
• 6M: 35.83%
• 1Y: 64.11%
• 3Y*: 23.54%
• 5Y*: 9.38%
• 10Y*: 12.54%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
LCAL.L Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc	32.38%	24.10%	13.67%	0.95%	-11.42%	-4.08%	24.20%	14.12%	-7.85%
AASG.L Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Asia UCITS ETF USD	32.89%	23.83%	14.04%	0.69%	-11.51%	-4.50%	24.04%	14.10%	-8.42%

Correlation

The correlation between LCAL.L and AASG.L is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.95
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 LCAL.L and AASG.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors	LCAL.L	AASG.L
Technology	45.2%	44.9%
Financial Services	16.4%	14.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.5%	10.6%
Industrials	7.1%	7.8%
Communication Services	6.9%	7.1%
Healthcare	3.8%	3.2%
Basic Materials	3.0%	3.9%
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	2.5%
Energy	2.1%	2.9%
Real Estate	1.3%	0.7%
Utilities	1.0%	1.5%

Return for Risk

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

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

LCAL.L

LCAL.L Risk / Return Rank: 90
LCAL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
LCAL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
LCAL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 92
LCAL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
LCAL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 87

AASG.L

AASG.L Risk / Return Rank: 91
AASG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
AASG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
AASG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 92
AASG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
AASG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc (LCAL.L) and Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Asia UCITS ETF USD (AASG.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.

	LCAL.L	AASG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.43	3.50	-0.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.36	4.42	-0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.62	1.62	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.45	5.56	-0.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.54	19.24	-0.70
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current LCAL.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.43, which is comparable to the AASG.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCAL.L and AASG.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

	LCAL.L	AASG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.43	3.50	-0.07
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.53	0.53	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.68	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.50	0.69	-0.19

Drawdowns

LCAL.L vs. AASG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCAL.L drawdown since its inception was -33.83%, roughly equal to the maximum AASG.L drawdown of -34.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCAL.L and AASG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCAL.L	AASG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.83%	-34.12%	+0.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.62%	-11.46%	-0.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.61%	-17.56%	-0.05%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.34%	-28.57%	+0.23%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.09%	-0.95%	-0.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.58%	-11.03%	-1.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.42%	3.32%	+0.10%

Volatility

LCAL.L vs. AASG.L - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc (LCAL.L) and Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Asia UCITS ETF USD (AASG.L) have volatilities of 8.56% and 8.31%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	LCAL.L	AASG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.56%	8.31%	+0.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.54%	15.42%	+0.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.47%	18.24%	+0.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.71%	17.68%	+0.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.01%	18.55%	+0.46%

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

LCAL.L has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than AASG.L's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

LCAL.L vs. AASG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither LCAL.L nor AASG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LCAL.L and AASG.L in my portfolio?

LCAL.L and AASG.L have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, LCAL.L or AASG.L?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, LCAL.L or AASG.L?

LCAL.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for AASG.L.

What is the main difference between LCAL.L and AASG.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for LCAL.L and 0.20% for AASG.L.