LCCN.L vs. CQQQ

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

LCCN.L (Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc) and CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) are both China Equities funds - LCCN.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD while CQQQ tracks the FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LCCN.L returned -4.89%/yr vs -7.31%/yr for CQQQ. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LCCN.L charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for CQQQ.

Performance

LCCN.L vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ). 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 CQQQ's 3.52% 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*: —

CQQQ

• 1D: 1.03%
• 1M: 5.51%
• YTD: 3.52%
• 6M: 5.44%
• 1Y: 31.50%
• 3Y*: 11.27%
• 5Y*: -7.31%
• 10Y*: 5.38%

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

LCCN.L vs. CQQQ - 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%
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	3.52%	34.96%	9.84%	-16.71%	-30.09%	-24.54%	57.33%	33.57%	-3.11%

Correlation

The correlation between LCCN.L and CQQQ 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	0.77
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2018	0.78

The correlation between LCCN.L and CQQQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

LCCN.L vs. CQQQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LCCN.L	CQQQ
Consumer Cyclical	26.4%	13.8%
Financial Services	19.1%	0.1%
Communication Services	18.8%	21.9%
Technology	9.6%	58.2%
Basic Materials	5.5%	0.1%
Healthcare	5.4%	-
Industrials	5.0%	1.3%
Energy	3.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	-
Utilities	1.7%	-
Real Estate	1.5%	-

Return for Risk

LCCN.L vs. CQQQ — 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

CQQQ

CQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 29
CQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
CQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
CQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 30
CQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
CQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 24

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. CQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ). 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	CQQQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.25	1.06	-0.82
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.50	1.63	-1.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.20	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.29	1.30	-1.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.61	3.04	-2.42
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. CQQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.25, which is lower than the CQQQ Sharpe Ratio of 1.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCCN.L and CQQQ, 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	CQQQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.25	1.06	-0.82
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.17	-0.19	+0.03
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.16	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.11	0.19	-0.07

Drawdowns

LCCN.L vs. CQQQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCCN.L drawdown since its inception was -62.38%, smaller than the maximum CQQQ drawdown of -73.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCCN.L and CQQQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCCN.L	CQQQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.38%	-73.99%	+11.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.98%	-24.41%	+7.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.52%	-35.93%	+10.41%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-56.10%	-66.96%	+10.86%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-73.99%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-34.07%	-48.65%	+14.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.16%	-28.30%	-1.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.15%	10.40%	-2.25%

Volatility

LCCN.L vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) is 8.04%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 11.62%. This indicates that LCCN.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CQQQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCCN.L	CQQQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.04%	11.62%	-3.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.66%	21.86%	-7.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.12%	29.79%	-9.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.33%	38.02%	-8.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.88%	33.29%	-5.41%

LCCN.L vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCCN.L has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than CQQQ's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCCN.L vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison

LCCN.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CQQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.09%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	2.09%	2.17%	0.28%	0.55%	0.08%	0.00%	0.47%	0.01%	0.43%	1.41%	1.69%	1.77%
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China 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

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

LCCN.L and CQQQ 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 CQQQ?

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 CQQQ?

LCCN.L is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for CQQQ.

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

LCCN.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while CQQQ tracks FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for LCCN.L and 0.70% for CQQQ.