MCHN.L vs. LCCN.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

MCHN.L (Invesco MSCI China All Shares Connect UCITS ETF) and LCCN.L (Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc) are both China Equities funds - MCHN.L tracks the Invesco MSCI China All Shares Connect UCITS ETF while LCCN.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, MCHN.L returned -3.50%/yr vs -4.23%/yr for LCCN.L. With a 0.95 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. MCHN.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for LCCN.L.

Performance

MCHN.L vs. LCCN.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco MSCI China All Shares Connect UCITS ETF (MCHN.L) and Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MCHN.L achieves a -4.19% return, which is significantly higher than LCCN.L's -8.72% return.

MCHN.L

• 1D: -1.16%
• 1M: -2.71%
• 6M: -8.31%
• YTD: -4.19%
• 1Y: 7.58%
• 3Y*: 8.96%
• 5Y*: -3.50%
• 10Y*: —

LCCN.L

• 1D: 2.05%
• 1M: -0.85%
• 6M: -13.44%
• YTD: -8.72%
• 1Y: -0.57%
• 3Y*: 8.66%
• 5Y*: -4.23%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
MCHN.L Invesco MSCI China All Shares Connect UCITS ETF	-4.19%	28.12%	16.91%	-12.79%	-24.06%	-19.70%
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc	-8.72%	31.99%	19.37%	-11.59%	-22.21%	-26.85%

Correlation

The correlation between MCHN.L and LCCN.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	0.95
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 1, 2021	0.95

The correlation between MCHN.L and LCCN.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MCHN.L vs. LCCN.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

MCHN.L

MCHN.L Risk / Return Rank: 16
MCHN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
MCHN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
MCHN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 15
MCHN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
MCHN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 16

LCCN.L

LCCN.L Risk / Return Rank: 9
LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
LCCN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
LCCN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8
LCCN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
LCCN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9

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.

MCHN.L vs. LCCN.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco MSCI China All Shares Connect UCITS ETF (MCHN.L) and Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	MCHN.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.39	-0.03	+0.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.68	0.11	+0.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.01	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.59	-0.03	+0.62
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.19	-0.05	+1.24

MCHN.L vs. LCCN.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCHN.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.39, which is higher than the LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio of -0.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCHN.L and LCCN.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.

Drawdowns

MCHN.L vs. LCCN.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCHN.L drawdown since its inception was -52.51%, smaller than the maximum LCCN.L drawdown of -62.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCHN.L and LCCN.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCHN.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.51%	-62.38%	+9.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.42%	-22.74%	+10.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.72%	-25.53%	+0.81%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-47.92%	-53.18%	+5.26%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.67%	-35.27%	+11.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.33%	-29.90%	-1.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.20%	10.49%	-4.29%

Volatility

MCHN.L vs. LCCN.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco MSCI China All Shares Connect UCITS ETF (MCHN.L) has a higher volatility of 6.18% compared to Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) at 5.49%. This indicates that MCHN.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LCCN.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MCHN.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.18%	5.49%	+0.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.08%	15.17%	-1.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.87%	20.46%	-1.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.09%	29.35%	-3.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.71%	27.61%	-1.90%

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

MCHN.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than LCCN.L's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

MCHN.L vs. LCCN.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.94, MCHN.L and LCCN.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, MCHN.L or LCCN.L?

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.

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

LCCN.L is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for MCHN.L.

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

MCHN.L tracks Invesco MSCI China All Shares Connect UCITS ETF, while LCCN.L tracks MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for MCHN.L and 0.29% for LCCN.L.