XCHA.L vs. LCCN.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XCHA.L (Xtrackers CSI 300 Swap UCITS ETF 1C) and LCCN.L (Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc) are both China Equities funds - XCHA.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY while LCCN.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XCHA.L returned 2.07%/yr vs -4.89%/yr for LCCN.L. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XCHA.L charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for LCCN.L.

Performance

XCHA.L vs. LCCN.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers CSI 300 Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCHA.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, XCHA.L achieves a 11.44% return, which is significantly higher than LCCN.L's -7.04% return.

XCHA.L

• 1D: -0.57%
• 1M: 2.27%
• YTD: 11.44%
• 6M: 15.20%
• 1Y: 41.84%
• 3Y*: 15.51%
• 5Y*: 2.07%
• 10Y*: 9.32%

LCCN.L

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: -2.64%
• YTD: -7.04%
• 6M: -8.41%
• 1Y: 5.00%
• 3Y*: 11.02%
• 5Y*: -4.89%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
XCHA.L Xtrackers CSI 300 Swap UCITS ETF 1C	11.44%	30.08%	16.02%	-11.00%	-24.25%	3.24%	45.85%	40.57%	-1.99%
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc	-7.04%	32.04%	19.37%	-11.61%	-22.21%	-21.87%	29.79%	21.86%	1.99%

Correlation

The correlation between XCHA.L and LCCN.L is 0.73, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.77
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2018	0.77

The correlation between XCHA.L and LCCN.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

XCHA.L vs. LCCN.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XCHA.L	LCCN.L
Technology	26.9%	9.6%
Financial Services	20.0%	19.1%
Industrials	16.5%	5.0%
Basic Materials	10.3%	5.5%
Consumer Defensive	7.2%	3.2%
Consumer Cyclical	6.5%	26.4%
Healthcare	4.7%	5.4%
Energy	3.0%	3.7%
Utilities	2.8%	1.7%
Communication Services	1.6%	18.8%
Real Estate	0.5%	1.5%

Return for Risk

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

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

XCHA.L

XCHA.L Risk / Return Rank: 83
XCHA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
XCHA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
XCHA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 77
XCHA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
XCHA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 89

LCCN.L

LCCN.L Risk / Return Rank: 13
LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
LCCN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
LCCN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 13
LCCN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
LCCN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers CSI 300 Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCHA.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.

	XCHA.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.51	0.25	+2.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.44	0.50	+2.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.06	+0.39
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.69	0.29	+6.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.41	0.61	+18.80
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current XCHA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.51, which is higher than the LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XCHA.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	XCHA.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.51	0.25	+2.26
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.09	-0.17	+0.26
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.41	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.29	0.11	+0.18

Drawdowns

XCHA.L vs. LCCN.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XCHA.L drawdown since its inception was -50.88%, smaller than the maximum LCCN.L drawdown of -62.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XCHA.L and LCCN.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XCHA.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.88%	-62.38%	+11.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.23%	-16.98%	+10.75%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.84%	-25.52%	-1.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-40.18%	-56.10%	+15.92%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-44.90%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.93%	-34.07%	+32.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-24.58%	-30.16%	+5.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.15%	8.15%	-6.00%

Volatility

XCHA.L vs. LCCN.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers CSI 300 Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCHA.L) is 6.13%, while Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) has a volatility of 8.04%. This indicates that XCHA.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LCCN.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XCHA.L	LCCN.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.13%	8.04%	-1.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.46%	14.66%	-3.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.60%	20.12%	-3.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.39%	29.33%	-6.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.69%	27.88%	-5.19%

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

XCHA.L has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than LCCN.L's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

XCHA.L vs. LCCN.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

XCHA.L and LCCN.L have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, XCHA.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, XCHA.L or LCCN.L?

LCCN.L is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for XCHA.L.

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

XCHA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while LCCN.L tracks MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for XCHA.L and 0.29% for LCCN.L.