LCCN.L vs. FXC.L
LCCN.L (Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc) and FXC.L (iShares China Large Cap UCITS) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China NR USD, from Amundi and iShares respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LCCN.L returned -4.89%/yr vs -2.43%/yr for FXC.L. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LCCN.L charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.74%/yr for FXC.L.
Performance
LCCN.L vs. FXC.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
LCCN.L is traded in USD, while FXC.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the FXC.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with LCCN.L having a -7.04% return and FXC.L slightly lower at -7.07%.
LCCN.L
- 1D
- -0.13%
- 1M
- -2.64%
- YTD
- -7.04%
- 6M
- -8.41%
- 1Y
- 5.00%
- 3Y*
- 11.02%
- 5Y*
- -4.89%
- 10Y*
- —
FXC.L
- 1D
- -0.08%
- 1M
- -2.62%
- YTD
- -7.07%
- 6M
- -8.17%
- 1Y
- 1.01%
- 3Y*
- 12.80%
- 5Y*
- -2.43%
- 10Y*
- 3.68%
LCCN.L vs. FXC.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% |
FXC.L iShares China Large Cap UCITS | -7.07% | 29.59% | 31.55% | -13.53% | -20.23% | -19.62% | 10.91% | 14.58% | 1.91% |
Correlation
The correlation between LCCN.L and FXC.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 | 0.96 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2018 | 0.94 |
The correlation between LCCN.L and FXC.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.
LCCN.L vs. FXC.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
LCCN.L
FXC.L
Consumer Cyclical
Financial Services
Communication Services
Technology
Basic Materials
Healthcare
Industrials
Energy
Consumer Defensive
Utilities
Real Estate
Consumer Cyclical
LCCN.L
FXC.L
Financial Services
LCCN.L
FXC.L
Communication Services
LCCN.L
FXC.L
Technology
LCCN.L
FXC.L
Basic Materials
LCCN.L
FXC.L
Healthcare
LCCN.L
FXC.L
Industrials
LCCN.L
FXC.L
Energy
LCCN.L
FXC.L
Consumer Defensive
LCCN.L
FXC.L
Utilities
LCCN.L
FXC.L
Real Estate
LCCN.L
FXC.L
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
LCCN.L vs. FXC.L — Risk / Return Rank
LCCN.L
FXC.L
LCCN.L vs. FXC.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 iShares China Large Cap UCITS (FXC.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 | FXC.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.19 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.29 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.06 | 1.02 | +0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.29 | 0.06 | +0.23 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.61 | 0.14 | +0.47 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| LCCN.L | FXC.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.25 | 0.05 | +0.19 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.17 | -0.08 | -0.09 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.14 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.11 | 0.07 | +0.04 |
Drawdowns
LCCN.L vs. FXC.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LCCN.L drawdown since its inception was -62.38%, smaller than the maximum FXC.L drawdown of -70.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCCN.L and FXC.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LCCN.L | FXC.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -62.38% | -70.48% | +8.10% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.98% | -15.73% | -1.25% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -25.52% | -28.24% | +2.72% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -56.10% | -54.09% | -2.01% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -60.20% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -34.07% | -24.27% | -9.80% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -30.16% | -31.12% | +0.96% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.15% | 7.37% | +0.78% |
Volatility
LCCN.L vs. FXC.L - Volatility Comparison
Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) has a higher volatility of 8.04% compared to iShares China Large Cap UCITS (FXC.L) at 7.40%. This indicates that LCCN.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FXC.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LCCN.L | FXC.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.04% | 7.40% | +0.64% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.66% | 13.62% | +1.04% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.12% | 18.91% | +1.21% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 29.33% | 29.86% | -0.53% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.88% | 26.08% | +1.80% |
LCCN.L vs. FXC.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
LCCN.L has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than FXC.L's 0.74% expense ratio.
Dividends
LCCN.L vs. FXC.L - Dividend Comparison
LCCN.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FXC.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.58%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FXC.L iShares China Large Cap UCITS | 2.58% | 2.37% | 2.99% | 3.10% | 2.85% | 2.51% | 3.26% | 3.22% | 3.89% | 3.18% | 3.04% | 4.00% |
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
With a correlation of 0.94, LCCN.L and FXC.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.
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.
LCCN.L is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for FXC.L.
Both ETFs track MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for LCCN.L and 0.74% for FXC.L.
Find the right allocation for LCCN.L and FXC.L
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer