LCCN.L vs. QTOP

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

LCCN.L (Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc) and QTOP (iShares Nasdaq Top 30 Stocks ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LCCN.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China NR USD, while QTOP is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Nasdaq-100 Top 30 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, LCCN.L returned 5.00% vs 44.62% for QTOP. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LCCN.L charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for QTOP.

Performance

LCCN.L vs. QTOP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) and iShares Nasdaq Top 30 Stocks ETF (QTOP). 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 QTOP's 21.83% 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*: —

QTOP

• 1D: -0.72%
• 1M: 8.47%
• YTD: 21.83%
• 6M: 20.96%
• 1Y: 44.62%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LCCN.L vs. QTOP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc	-7.04%	32.04%	-3.23%
QTOP iShares Nasdaq Top 30 Stocks ETF	21.83%	22.19%	5.80%

Correlation

The correlation between LCCN.L and QTOP is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 25, 2024	0.25

The correlation between LCCN.L and QTOP shifts across timeframes, from 0.25 (all time) to 0.35 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LCCN.L vs. QTOP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LCCN.L	QTOP
Consumer Cyclical	26.4%	10.4%
Financial Services	19.1%	-
Communication Services	18.8%	17.7%
Technology	9.6%	57.7%
Basic Materials	5.5%	1.5%
Healthcare	5.4%	3.3%
Industrials	5.0%	0.9%
Energy	3.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	8.5%
Utilities	1.7%	-
Real Estate	1.5%	-

Return for Risk

LCCN.L vs. QTOP — 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

QTOP

QTOP Risk / Return Rank: 74
QTOP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
QTOP Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
QTOP Omega Ratio Rank: 75
QTOP Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
QTOP Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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. QTOP - 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 Nasdaq Top 30 Stocks ETF (QTOP). 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	QTOP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.25	2.57	-2.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.50	3.35	-2.85
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.44	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.29	3.48	-3.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.61	12.81	-12.20
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. QTOP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.25, which is lower than the QTOP Sharpe Ratio of 2.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCCN.L and QTOP, 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	QTOP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.25	2.57	-2.33
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.17	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.11	1.45	-1.34

Drawdowns

LCCN.L vs. QTOP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCCN.L drawdown since its inception was -62.38%, which is greater than QTOP's maximum drawdown of -23.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCCN.L and QTOP.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCCN.L	QTOP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.38%	-23.28%	-39.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.98%	-12.88%	-4.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.52%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-56.10%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-34.07%	-0.93%	-33.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.16%	-3.81%	-26.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.15%	3.49%	+4.66%

Volatility

LCCN.L vs. QTOP - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) has a higher volatility of 8.04% compared to iShares Nasdaq Top 30 Stocks ETF (QTOP) at 5.28%. This indicates that LCCN.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QTOP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCCN.L	QTOP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.04%	5.28%	+2.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.66%	13.45%	+1.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.12%	17.41%	+2.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.33%	22.68%	+6.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.88%	22.68%	+5.20%

LCCN.L vs. QTOP - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCCN.L has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is higher than QTOP's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCCN.L vs. QTOP - Dividend Comparison

LCCN.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QTOP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.32%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QTOP iShares Nasdaq Top 30 Stocks ETF	0.32%	0.38%	0.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

LCCN.L and QTOP have a correlation of 0.35, 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 QTOP?

On fees, QTOP is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, LCCN.L or QTOP?

QTOP is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.29% for LCCN.L.

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

LCCN.L is categorized as China Equities, while QTOP is Nasdaq-100. LCCN.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while QTOP tracks Nasdaq-100 Top 30 Index. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for LCCN.L and 0.20% for QTOP.