LCCN.L vs. CNSG.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

LCCN.L (Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc) and CNSG.L (UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China NR USD, from Amundi and UBS respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LCCN.L returned -4.23%/yr vs -4.26%/yr for CNSG.L. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LCCN.L charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for CNSG.L.

Performance

LCCN.L vs. CNSG.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 UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (CNSG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

LCCN.L is traded in USD, while CNSG.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the CNSG.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCCN.L achieves a -8.72% return, which is significantly lower than CNSG.L's -5.46% return.

LCCN.L

• 1D: 2.05%
• 1M: -0.85%
• 6M: -13.44%
• YTD: -8.72%
• 1Y: -0.57%
• 3Y*: 8.66%
• 5Y*: -4.23%
• 10Y*: —

CNSG.L

• 1D: 2.17%
• 1M: -1.30%
• 6M: -9.04%
• YTD: -5.46%
• 1Y: -1.44%
• 3Y*: 7.93%
• 5Y*: -4.26%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc	-8.72%	31.99%	19.37%	-11.59%	-22.21%	-21.87%	29.79%	8.08%
CNSG.L UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis	-5.46%	27.10%	18.51%	-14.21%	-21.64%	-18.15%	30.89%	-12.14%

Correlation

The correlation between LCCN.L and CNSG.L is 0.94, 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	0.94
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2019	0.93

The correlation between LCCN.L and CNSG.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

LCCN.L vs. CNSG.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: 9
LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
LCCN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
LCCN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8
LCCN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
LCCN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9

CNSG.L

CNSG.L Risk / Return Rank: 8
CNSG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
CNSG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
CNSG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7
CNSG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
CNSG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8

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. CNSG.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 UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (CNSG.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	LCCN.L	CNSG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.03	-0.08	+0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.11	0.01	+0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.00	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.03	-0.08	+0.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.05	-0.18	+0.13

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

The current LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio is -0.03, which is higher than the CNSG.L Sharpe Ratio of -0.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCCN.L and CNSG.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.

Drawdowns

LCCN.L vs. CNSG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCCN.L drawdown since its inception was -62.38%, roughly equal to the maximum CNSG.L drawdown of -59.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCCN.L and CNSG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCCN.L	CNSG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.38%	-59.96%	-2.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.74%	-18.02%	-4.72%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.53%	-29.05%	+3.52%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-53.18%	-51.47%	-1.71%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-35.27%	-33.64%	-1.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.90%	-32.70%	+2.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.49%	7.93%	+2.56%

Volatility

LCCN.L vs. CNSG.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) is 5.49%, while UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (CNSG.L) has a volatility of 5.80%. This indicates that LCCN.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNSG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCCN.L	CNSG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.49%	5.80%	-0.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.17%	13.38%	+1.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.46%	17.95%	+2.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.35%	28.74%	+0.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.61%	27.57%	+0.04%

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

LCCN.L has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than CNSG.L's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCCN.L vs. CNSG.L - Dividend Comparison

LCCN.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CNSG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.68%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CNSG.L UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis	2.68%	2.57%	0.85%	2.00%	1.80%	1.35%	0.74%
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 CNSG.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, LCCN.L and CNSG.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 CNSG.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 CNSG.L?

LCCN.L is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for CNSG.L.

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

Both ETFs track MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for LCCN.L and 0.45% for CNSG.L.