SGLN.L vs. CNYA
SGLN.L (iShares Physical Gold ETC) and CNYA (iShares MSCI China A ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SGLN.L is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price, while CNYA is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Inclusion Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, SGLN.L returned 19.24%/yr vs -0.56%/yr for CNYA. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SGLN.L charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for CNYA.
Performance
SGLN.L vs. CNYA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
SGLN.L is traded in GBp, while CNYA is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the CNYA values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SGLN.L achieves a 1.38% return, which is significantly lower than CNYA's 5.12% return.
SGLN.L
- 1D
- -0.06%
- 1M
- -6.00%
- YTD
- 1.38%
- 6M
- 3.07%
- 1Y
- 31.70%
- 3Y*
- 27.57%
- 5Y*
- 19.24%
- 10Y*
- 13.68%
CNYA
- 1D
- -1.02%
- 1M
- -2.16%
- YTD
- 5.12%
- 6M
- 6.32%
- 1Y
- 31.97%
- 3Y*
- 7.76%
- 5Y*
- -0.56%
- 10Y*
- —
SGLN.L vs. CNYA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SGLN.L iShares Physical Gold ETC | 1.38% | 53.66% | 28.20% | 7.24% | 11.84% | -2.82% | 19.93% | 14.63% | 4.36% | 1.68% |
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF | 5.12% | 17.47% | 12.72% | -18.07% | -17.77% | 4.52% | 37.38% | 30.77% | -22.21% | 19.66% |
Correlation
The correlation between SGLN.L and CNYA is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.10 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 16, 2016 | 0.14 |
The correlation between SGLN.L and CNYA shifts across timeframes, from 0.08 (3 years) to 0.22 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
SGLN.L vs. CNYA — Risk / Return Rank
SGLN.L
CNYA
SGLN.L vs. CNYA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Physical Gold ETC (SGLN.L) and iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA). 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.
| SGLN.L | CNYA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.56 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.86 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.34 | -0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.75 | 4.53 | -2.78 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.61 | 12.47 | -7.86 |
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
| SGLN.L | CNYA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.35 | 1.91 | -0.56 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.89 | -0.02 | +0.91 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.73 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.25 | 0.28 | -0.04 |
Drawdowns
SGLN.L vs. CNYA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SGLN.L drawdown since its inception was -53.23%, which is greater than CNYA's maximum drawdown of -44.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SGLN.L and CNYA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SGLN.L | CNYA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -53.23% | -44.85% | -8.38% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -18.04% | -7.08% | -10.96% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -20.33% | -31.48% | +11.15% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.33% | -42.38% | +22.05% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -22.30% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -18.04% | -14.31% | -3.73% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -24.71% | -16.44% | -8.27% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.86% | 2.57% | +4.29% |
Volatility
SGLN.L vs. CNYA - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Physical Gold ETC (SGLN.L) is 4.84%, while iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) has a volatility of 6.20%. This indicates that SGLN.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNYA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SGLN.L | CNYA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.84% | 6.20% | -1.36% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 20.20% | 11.88% | +8.32% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.35% | 16.85% | +6.50% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.74% | 22.73% | -0.99% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.80% | 23.40% | -4.60% |
SGLN.L vs. CNYA - Expense Ratio Comparison
SGLN.L has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than CNYA's 0.60% expense ratio.
Dividends
SGLN.L vs. CNYA - Dividend Comparison
SGLN.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CNYA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.84%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF | 1.84% | 1.92% | 2.51% | 4.23% | 2.69% | 1.11% | 1.06% | 1.21% | 3.92% | 0.97% | 1.38% |
SGLN.L iShares Physical Gold ETC | 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
SGLN.L and CNYA have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, SGLN.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
SGLN.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CNYA.
SGLN.L is categorized as Gold, while CNYA is China Equities. SGLN.L tracks LBMA Gold Price, while CNYA tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for SGLN.L and 0.60% for CNYA.
Find the right allocation for SGLN.L and CNYA
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