LCCN.L vs. AH50.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

LCCN.L (Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc) and AH50.L (Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China NR USD, from Amundi and Xtrackers respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LCCN.L returned -4.89%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for AH50.L. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LCCN.L charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for AH50.L.

Performance

LCCN.L vs. AH50.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) and Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D (AH50.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCCN.L achieves a -7.04% return, which is significantly lower than AH50.L's 12.41% return.

LCCN.L

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: -2.64%
• YTD: -7.04%
• 6M: -8.41%
• 1Y: 5.00%
• 3Y*: 11.02%
• 5Y*: -4.89%
• 10Y*: —

AH50.L

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: 1.76%
• YTD: 12.41%
• 6M: 17.72%
• 1Y: 34.29%
• 3Y*: 16.08%
• 5Y*: 0.20%
• 10Y*: 7.74%

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

LCCN.L vs. AH50.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc	-7.04%	32.04%	19.37%	-11.61%	-22.21%	-21.87%	29.79%	21.86%	1.99%
AH50.L Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D	12.41%	26.76%	17.77%	-13.04%	-21.01%	-6.02%	28.04%	34.30%	-3.14%

Correlation

The correlation between LCCN.L and AH50.L is 0.73, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.83
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2018	0.82

The correlation between LCCN.L and AH50.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.73 (1 year) to 0.83 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LCCN.L vs. AH50.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LCCN.L	AH50.L
Consumer Cyclical	26.4%	7.5%
Financial Services	19.1%	11.4%
Communication Services	18.8%	1.8%
Technology	9.6%	27.6%
Basic Materials	5.5%	14.3%
Healthcare	5.4%	6.1%
Industrials	5.0%	20.4%
Energy	3.7%	2.6%
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	5.3%
Utilities	1.7%	2.4%
Real Estate	1.5%	0.7%

Return for Risk

LCCN.L vs. AH50.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCCN.L

LCCN.L Risk / Return Rank: 13
LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
LCCN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
LCCN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 13
LCCN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
LCCN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 12

AH50.L

AH50.L Risk / Return Rank: 63
AH50.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
AH50.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
AH50.L Omega Ratio Rank: 56
AH50.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
AH50.L Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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.

LCCN.L vs. AH50.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) and Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D (AH50.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.

	LCCN.L	AH50.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.25	1.89	-1.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.50	2.58	-2.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.34	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.29	4.11	-3.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.61	12.57	-11.95
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LCCN.L vs. AH50.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.25, which is lower than the AH50.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCCN.L and AH50.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

	LCCN.L	AH50.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.25	1.89	-1.65
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.17	0.01	-0.17
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.33	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.11	0.33	-0.21

Drawdowns

LCCN.L vs. AH50.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCCN.L drawdown since its inception was -62.38%, which is greater than AH50.L's maximum drawdown of -50.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCCN.L and AH50.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCCN.L	AH50.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.38%	-50.58%	-11.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.98%	-8.30%	-8.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.52%	-25.95%	+0.43%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-56.10%	-45.27%	-10.83%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-50.58%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-34.07%	-8.78%	-25.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.16%	-21.40%	-8.76%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.15%	2.72%	+5.43%

Volatility

LCCN.L vs. AH50.L - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) has a higher volatility of 8.04% compared to Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D (AH50.L) at 6.50%. This indicates that LCCN.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AH50.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCCN.L	AH50.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.04%	6.50%	+1.54%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.66%	13.07%	+1.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.12%	18.04%	+2.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.33%	24.33%	+5.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.88%	23.38%	+4.50%

LCCN.L vs. AH50.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCCN.L has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than AH50.L's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCCN.L vs. AH50.L - Dividend Comparison

LCCN.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while AH50.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.08%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
AH50.L Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D	2.08%	2.79%	2.37%	2.72%	3.00%	1.78%	1.57%
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LCCN.L and AH50.L in my portfolio?

LCCN.L and AH50.L have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, LCCN.L or AH50.L?

On fees, LCCN.L is cheaper at 0.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, LCCN.L or AH50.L?

LCCN.L is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AH50.L.

What is the main difference between LCCN.L and AH50.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for LCCN.L and 0.65% for AH50.L.