LCUA.DE vs. CEBL.DE
Compare and contrast key facts about Amundi MSCI Emerging Asia II UCITS ETF Acc (LCUA.DE) and iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEBL.DE).
LCUA.DE and CEBL.DE are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. LCUA.DE is a passively managed fund by Amundi that tracks the performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia. It was launched on Mar 5, 2018. CEBL.DE is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia. It was launched on Aug 6, 2010. Both LCUA.DE and CEBL.DE are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: LCUA.DE or CEBL.DE.
Key characteristics
| LCUA.DE | CEBL.DE | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 17.78% | 18.39% |
| 1Y Return | 20.02% | 20.35% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | -0.44% | -0.52% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 5.10% | 4.95% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.32 | 1.33 |
| Sortino Ratio | 1.91 | 1.91 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.25 | 1.25 |
| Calmar Ratio | 0.72 | 0.74 |
| Martin Ratio | 6.62 | 6.79 |
| Ulcer Index | 3.06% | 3.03% |
| Daily Std Dev | 15.44% | 15.54% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.18% | -35.09% |
| Current Drawdown | -10.55% | -10.05% |
Correlation
The correlation between LCUA.DE and CEBL.DE is 0.92, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
LCUA.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Performance Comparison
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with LCUA.DE having a 17.78% return and CEBL.DE slightly higher at 18.39%. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
LCUA.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison
LCUA.DE has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than CEBL.DE's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
LCUA.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi MSCI Emerging Asia II UCITS ETF Acc (LCUA.DE) and iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEBL.DE). 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.
Dividends
LCUA.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Dividend Comparison
Neither LCUA.DE nor CEBL.DE has paid dividends to shareholders.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LCUA.DE Amundi MSCI Emerging Asia II 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% |
CEBL.DE iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 1.69% | 1.86% |
Drawdowns
LCUA.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LCUA.DE drawdown since its inception was -33.18%, smaller than the maximum CEBL.DE drawdown of -35.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCUA.DE and CEBL.DE. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
LCUA.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Volatility Comparison
Amundi MSCI Emerging Asia II UCITS ETF Acc (LCUA.DE) and iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEBL.DE) have volatilities of 6.40% and 6.17%, 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.