TIPA.L vs. CSH2.L
TIPA.L (Lyxor Core US TIPS (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc) and CSH2.L (Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP) are both exchange-traded funds - TIPA.L is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg Gbl Infl Linked US TIPS TR USD, while CSH2.L is a Money Market fund actively managed by Amundi. TIPA.L is passively managed, while CSH2.L is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, TIPA.L returned 0.93%/yr vs 2.57%/yr for CSH2.L. At a 0.18 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. TIPA.L charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for CSH2.L.
Performance
TIPA.L vs. CSH2.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
TIPA.L is traded in USD, while CSH2.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the CSH2.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TIPA.L achieves a 1.23% return, which is significantly lower than CSH2.L's 1.49% return.
TIPA.L
- 1D
- 0.03%
- 1M
- -0.01%
- YTD
- 1.23%
- 6M
- 1.30%
- 1Y
- 4.75%
- 3Y*
- 3.80%
- 5Y*
- 0.93%
- 10Y*
- —
CSH2.L
- 1D
- 0.08%
- 1M
- -0.49%
- YTD
- 1.49%
- 6M
- 2.83%
- 1Y
- 3.38%
- 3Y*
- 7.71%
- 5Y*
- 2.57%
- 10Y*
- 1.33%
TIPA.L vs. CSH2.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TIPA.L Lyxor Core US TIPS (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc | 1.23% | 6.81% | 2.09% | 3.51% | -12.46% | 5.91% | 11.05% | 0.73% |
CSH2.L Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP | 1.49% | 12.57% | 3.85% | 10.24% | -9.32% | -0.78% | 3.37% | 2.98% |
Correlation
The correlation between TIPA.L and CSH2.L is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.26 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.19 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 15, 2019 | 0.18 |
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
TIPA.L vs. CSH2.L — Risk / Return Rank
TIPA.L
CSH2.L
TIPA.L vs. CSH2.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor Core US TIPS (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (TIPA.L) and Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP (CSH2.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.
| TIPA.L | CSH2.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.82 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.20 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.24 | 1.09 | +0.15 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.57 | 0.82 | +1.75 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.17 | 1.79 | +5.38 |
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
| TIPA.L | CSH2.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.33 | 0.51 | +0.82 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.16 | 0.30 | -0.14 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.14 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.42 | 0.07 | +0.35 |
Drawdowns
TIPA.L vs. CSH2.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TIPA.L drawdown since its inception was -15.11%, smaller than the maximum CSH2.L drawdown of -29.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TIPA.L and CSH2.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TIPA.L | CSH2.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -15.11% | -29.83% | +14.72% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -1.84% | -4.11% | +2.27% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -4.61% | -7.81% | +3.20% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -15.11% | -23.98% | +8.87% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -25.51% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.79% | -1.62% | +0.83% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.44% | -12.73% | +7.29% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.66% | 1.88% | -1.22% |
Volatility
TIPA.L vs. CSH2.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Lyxor Core US TIPS (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (TIPA.L) is 1.28%, while Lyxor Smart Overnight Return UCITS ETF C-GBP (CSH2.L) has a volatility of 1.81%. This indicates that TIPA.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CSH2.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| TIPA.L | CSH2.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.28% | 1.81% | -0.53% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.40% | 4.94% | -2.54% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.57% | 6.62% | -3.05% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.95% | 8.55% | -2.60% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 6.30% | 9.36% | -3.06% |
TIPA.L vs. CSH2.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
TIPA.L has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is higher than CSH2.L's 0.07% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
TIPA.L vs. CSH2.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither TIPA.L nor CSH2.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
TIPA.L and CSH2.L have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CSH2.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CSH2.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.09% for TIPA.L.
TIPA.L is categorized as Inflation-Protected Bonds, while CSH2.L is Money Market. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for TIPA.L and 0.07% for CSH2.L.
Find the right allocation for TIPA.L and CSH2.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