MCHS.L vs. HMCD.L
MCHS.L (Invesco MSCI China All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc) and HMCD.L (HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China NR USD, from Invesco and HSBC respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, MCHS.L returned -2.78%/yr vs -4.13%/yr for HMCD.L. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MCHS.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for HMCD.L.
Performance
MCHS.L vs. HMCD.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
MCHS.L is traded in GBp, while HMCD.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the HMCD.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MCHS.L achieves a -0.77% return, which is significantly higher than HMCD.L's -6.82% return.
MCHS.L
- 1D
- -0.93%
- 1M
- 0.46%
- YTD
- -0.77%
- 6M
- -0.85%
- 1Y
- 17.78%
- 3Y*
- 7.98%
- 5Y*
- -2.78%
- 10Y*
- —
HMCD.L
- 1D
- -2.67%
- 1M
- -2.21%
- YTD
- -6.82%
- 6M
- -8.57%
- 1Y
- 7.69%
- 3Y*
- 7.49%
- 5Y*
- -4.13%
- 10Y*
- 5.83%
MCHS.L vs. HMCD.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MCHS.L Invesco MSCI China All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc | -0.77% | 19.38% | 18.84% | -17.54% | -14.53% | -17.01% |
HMCD.L HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF | -6.82% | 22.20% | 20.76% | -15.94% | -13.31% | -25.78% |
Correlation
The correlation between MCHS.L and HMCD.L is 0.92, 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 | 0.92 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.92 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.92 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 4, 2021 | 0.92 |
The correlation between MCHS.L and HMCD.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.
MCHS.L vs. HMCD.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
MCHS.L
HMCD.L
Technology
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
Industrials
Basic Materials
Consumer Defensive
Healthcare
Energy
Utilities
Real Estate
Technology
MCHS.L
HMCD.L
Financial Services
MCHS.L
HMCD.L
Consumer Cyclical
MCHS.L
HMCD.L
Communication Services
MCHS.L
HMCD.L
Industrials
MCHS.L
HMCD.L
Basic Materials
MCHS.L
HMCD.L
Consumer Defensive
MCHS.L
HMCD.L
Healthcare
MCHS.L
HMCD.L
Energy
MCHS.L
HMCD.L
Utilities
MCHS.L
HMCD.L
Real Estate
MCHS.L
HMCD.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
MCHS.L vs. HMCD.L — Risk / Return Rank
MCHS.L
HMCD.L
MCHS.L vs. HMCD.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco MSCI China All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc (MCHS.L) and HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCD.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.
| MCHS.L | HMCD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.71 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.90 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.20 | 1.08 | +0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.47 | 0.45 | +1.02 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.52 | 0.94 | +2.58 |
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
| MCHS.L | HMCD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.10 | 0.39 | +0.71 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.09 | -0.15 | +0.06 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.23 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.12 | 0.16 | -0.28 |
Drawdowns
MCHS.L vs. HMCD.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MCHS.L drawdown since its inception was -47.34%, smaller than the maximum HMCD.L drawdown of -56.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCHS.L and HMCD.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MCHS.L | HMCD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -47.34% | -56.56% | +9.22% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.03% | -16.93% | +4.90% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.97% | -24.84% | -0.13% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -45.71% | -49.36% | +3.65% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -56.56% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -17.67% | -32.66% | +14.99% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -26.07% | -20.52% | -5.55% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.04% | 8.16% | -3.12% |
Volatility
MCHS.L vs. HMCD.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco MSCI China All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc (MCHS.L) is 5.63%, while HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCD.L) has a volatility of 7.69%. This indicates that MCHS.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HMCD.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MCHS.L | HMCD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.63% | 7.69% | -2.06% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.97% | 14.26% | -3.29% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.16% | 19.58% | -3.42% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 31.74% | 27.89% | +3.85% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 31.28% | 25.66% | +5.62% |
MCHS.L vs. HMCD.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
MCHS.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than HMCD.L's 0.30% expense ratio.
Dividends
MCHS.L vs. HMCD.L - Dividend Comparison
MCHS.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while HMCD.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.15%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HMCD.L HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF | 2.15% | 2.25% | 2.20% | 2.08% | 1.95% | 1.31% | 0.86% | 1.59% | 1.46% | 0.75% | 2.07% | 2.95% |
MCHS.L Invesco MSCI China All Shares Stock Connect 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 0.92, MCHS.L and HMCD.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, HMCD.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
HMCD.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for MCHS.L.
Both ETFs track MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and HSBC. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for MCHS.L and 0.30% for HMCD.L.
Find the right allocation for MCHS.L and HMCD.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