LCCN.L vs. FRCH.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

LCCN.L (Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc) and FRCH.L (Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China NR USD, from Amundi and Franklin Templeton respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LCCN.L returned -4.89%/yr vs -4.84%/yr for FRCH.L. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. LCCN.L charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for FRCH.L.

Performance

LCCN.L vs. FRCH.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 Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FRCH.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

LCCN.L is traded in USD, while FRCH.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the FRCH.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 -7.04% return, which is significantly lower than FRCH.L's -6.37% 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*: —

FRCH.L

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: -2.93%
• YTD: -6.37%
• 6M: -7.44%
• 1Y: 6.52%
• 3Y*: 10.85%
• 5Y*: -4.84%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc	-7.04%	32.04%	19.37%	-11.61%	-22.21%	-21.87%	29.79%	17.40%
FRCH.L Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF	-6.37%	32.52%	19.10%	-13.11%	-23.05%	-20.07%	30.68%	-6.93%

Correlation

The correlation between LCCN.L and FRCH.L is 0.96 - 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	0.96
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.97
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2019	0.96

The correlation between LCCN.L and FRCH.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors	LCCN.L	FRCH.L
Consumer Cyclical	26.4%	24.5%
Financial Services	19.1%	18.3%
Communication Services	18.8%	16.4%
Technology	9.6%	11.3%
Basic Materials	5.5%	5.6%
Healthcare	5.4%	5.5%
Industrials	5.0%	7.9%
Energy	3.7%	3.5%
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	3.3%
Utilities	1.7%	2.0%
Real Estate	1.5%	1.7%

Return for Risk

LCCN.L vs. FRCH.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

FRCH.L

FRCH.L Risk / Return Rank: 15
FRCH.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
FRCH.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
FRCH.L Omega Ratio Rank: 15
FRCH.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
FRCH.L Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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. FRCH.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 Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FRCH.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	FRCH.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.25	0.35	-0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.50	0.62	-0.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.07	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.29	0.41	-0.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.61	0.85	-0.24
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. FRCH.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.25, which is comparable to the FRCH.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCCN.L and FRCH.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	FRCH.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.25	0.35	-0.10
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.17	-0.14	-0.02
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.11	-0.02	+0.13

Drawdowns

LCCN.L vs. FRCH.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCCN.L drawdown since its inception was -62.38%, roughly equal to the maximum FRCH.L drawdown of -61.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCCN.L and FRCH.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCCN.L	FRCH.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.38%	-61.85%	-0.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.98%	-15.94%	-1.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.52%	-35.20%	+9.68%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-56.10%	-55.60%	-0.50%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-34.07%	-33.72%	-0.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.16%	-32.79%	+2.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.15%	7.63%	+0.52%

Volatility

LCCN.L vs. FRCH.L - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) has a higher volatility of 8.04% compared to Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FRCH.L) at 7.25%. This indicates that LCCN.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FRCH.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCCN.L	FRCH.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.04%	7.25%	+0.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.66%	13.32%	+1.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.12%	18.55%	+1.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.33%	33.88%	-4.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.88%	32.23%	-4.35%

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

LCCN.L has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is higher than FRCH.L's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCCN.L vs. FRCH.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.96, LCCN.L and FRCH.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 FRCH.L?

On fees, FRCH.L is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

FRCH.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.29% for LCCN.L.

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

Both ETFs track MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for LCCN.L and 0.19% for FRCH.L.