LCCN.L vs. QQQ
Compare and contrast key facts about Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) and Invesco QQQ ETF (QQQ).
LCCN.L and QQQ are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. LCCN.L is a passively managed fund by Amundi that tracks the performance of the MSCI China NR USD. It was launched on Jul 5, 2018. QQQ is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the NASDAQ-100 Index. It was launched on Mar 10, 1999. Both LCCN.L and QQQ are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
LCCN.L vs. QQQ - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
LCCN.L vs. QQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc | -6.78% | 32.04% | 19.37% | -11.61% | -22.21% | -21.87% | 29.79% | 21.86% | 1.99% |
QQQ Invesco QQQ ETF | -4.76% | 20.77% | 25.58% | 54.86% | -32.58% | 27.42% | 48.62% | 38.96% | -8.90% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LCCN.L achieves a -6.78% return, which is significantly lower than QQQ's -4.76% return.
LCCN.L
- 1D
- 1.65%
- 1M
- -3.61%
- YTD
- -6.78%
- 6M
- -13.72%
- 1Y
- 5.36%
- 3Y*
- 7.36%
- 5Y*
- -4.93%
- 10Y*
- —
QQQ
- 1D
- 1.24%
- 1M
- -3.79%
- YTD
- -4.76%
- 6M
- -2.89%
- 1Y
- 24.21%
- 3Y*
- 22.83%
- 5Y*
- 13.16%
- 10Y*
- 18.99%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
LCCN.L vs. QQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
LCCN.L has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQ's 0.18% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
LCCN.L vs. QQQ — Risk / Return Rank
LCCN.L
QQQ
LCCN.L vs. QQQ - 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 QQQ ETF (QQQ). 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 | QQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.24 | 1.07 | -0.83 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 0.47 | 1.66 | -1.19 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.06 | 1.24 | -0.18 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.38 | 2.00 | -1.62 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.98 | 7.32 | -6.34 |
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 graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| LCCN.L | QQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.24 | 1.07 | -0.83 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.17 | 0.59 | -0.76 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.86 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.12 | 0.38 | -0.26 |
Correlation
The correlation between LCCN.L and QQQ is 0.34, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Dividends
LCCN.L vs. QQQ - Dividend Comparison
LCCN.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.48%.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
QQQ Invesco QQQ ETF | 0.48% | 0.45% | 0.56% | 0.62% | 0.80% | 0.43% | 0.55% | 0.74% | 0.91% | 0.84% | 1.06% | 0.99% |
Drawdowns
LCCN.L vs. QQQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LCCN.L drawdown since its inception was -62.38%, smaller than the maximum QQQ drawdown of -82.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCCN.L and QQQ.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| LCCN.L | QQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -62.38% | -82.97% | +20.59% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.80% | -12.62% | -4.18% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -56.26% | -35.12% | -21.14% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -35.12% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -33.89% | -7.86% | -26.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -30.11% | -32.99% | +2.88% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.42% | 3.44% | +2.98% |
Volatility
LCCN.L vs. QQQ - Volatility Comparison
Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) and Invesco QQQ ETF (QQQ) have volatilities of 6.80% and 6.61%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| LCCN.L | QQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.80% | 6.61% | +0.19% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.14% | 12.82% | +1.32% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 22.32% | 22.70% | -0.38% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 29.24% | 22.38% | +6.86% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.97% | 22.25% | +5.72% |