LCCN.L vs. ASIU.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

LCCN.L (Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc) and ASIU.L (Lyxor MSCI China ESG Leaders Extra (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc) are both China Equities funds from Amundi tracking the MSCI China NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LCCN.L returned -4.89%/yr vs -6.88%/yr for ASIU.L. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LCCN.L charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for ASIU.L.

Performance

LCCN.L vs. ASIU.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 Lyxor MSCI China ESG Leaders Extra (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (ASIU.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with LCCN.L having a -7.04% return and ASIU.L slightly higher at -6.80%.

LCCN.L

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

ASIU.L

• 1D: -0.43%
• 1M: -1.65%
• YTD: -6.80%
• 6M: -8.35%
• 1Y: 5.55%
• 3Y*: 9.71%
• 5Y*: -6.88%
• 10Y*: —

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

LCCN.L vs. ASIU.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%
ASIU.L Lyxor MSCI China ESG Leaders Extra (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc	-6.80%	36.59%	18.62%	-16.23%	-26.27%	-23.38%	6.66%	4.03%	1.42%

Correlation

The correlation between LCCN.L and ASIU.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	0.62
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2018	0.51

Over the past year, LCCN.L and ASIU.L have become more correlated (0.98) than their long-term average of 0.51, meaning their price movements have been converging.

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

Sectors	LCCN.L	ASIU.L
Consumer Cyclical	26.4%	29.8%
Financial Services	19.1%	19.0%
Communication Services	18.8%	21.2%
Technology	9.6%	11.7%
Basic Materials	5.5%	3.1%
Healthcare	5.4%	5.9%
Industrials	5.0%	4.4%
Energy	3.7%	0.1%
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	2.8%
Utilities	1.7%	0.6%
Real Estate	1.5%	1.5%

Return for Risk

LCCN.L vs. ASIU.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

ASIU.L

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

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. ASIU.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 Lyxor MSCI China ESG Leaders Extra (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (ASIU.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	ASIU.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.25	0.26	-0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.50	0.53	-0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.06	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.29	0.30	-0.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.61	0.61	0.00
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. ASIU.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.25, which is comparable to the ASIU.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCCN.L and ASIU.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	ASIU.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.25	0.26	-0.01
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.17	-0.30	+0.13
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.11	-0.22	+0.33

Drawdowns

LCCN.L vs. ASIU.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCCN.L drawdown since its inception was -62.38%, roughly equal to the maximum ASIU.L drawdown of -64.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCCN.L and ASIU.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCCN.L	ASIU.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.38%	-64.71%	+2.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.98%	-18.29%	+1.31%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.52%	-27.50%	+1.98%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-56.10%	-58.89%	+2.79%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-34.07%	-40.19%	+6.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.16%	-36.13%	+5.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.15%	9.13%	-0.98%

Volatility

LCCN.L vs. ASIU.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) is 8.04%, while Lyxor MSCI China ESG Leaders Extra (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (ASIU.L) has a volatility of 8.90%. This indicates that LCCN.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ASIU.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCCN.L	ASIU.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.04%	8.90%	-0.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.66%	15.55%	-0.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.12%	21.39%	-1.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.33%	40.97%	-11.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.88%	39.95%	-12.07%

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

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

Dividends

LCCN.L vs. ASIU.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither LCCN.L nor ASIU.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.98, LCCN.L and ASIU.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.

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

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

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

Both ETFs track MSCI China NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for LCCN.L and 0.65% for ASIU.L.