XCO2.L vs. PLAN.L

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Lyxor Global Green Bond 1-10 Y (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (XCO2.L) and Lyxor Corporate Green Bond (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (PLAN.L).

XCO2.L and PLAN.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. XCO2.L is a passively managed fund by Amundi that tracks the performance of the Bloomberg Gbl Agg Corp TR USD. It was launched on Sep 13, 2019. PLAN.L is a passively managed fund by Amundi that tracks the performance of the Bloomberg Gbl Agg Corp TR USD. It was launched on Aug 12, 2021. Both XCO2.L and PLAN.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

XCO2.L vs. PLAN.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Lyxor Global Green Bond 1-10 Y (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (XCO2.L) and Lyxor Corporate Green Bond (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (PLAN.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

XCO2.L vs. PLAN.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
XCO2.L Lyxor Global Green Bond 1-10 Y (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc	-0.35%	4.08%
PLAN.L Lyxor Corporate Green Bond (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc	-1.30%	8.42%

Different Trading Currencies

XCO2.L is traded in GBP, while PLAN.L is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the PLAN.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XCO2.L achieves a -0.35% return, which is significantly higher than PLAN.L's -1.30% return.

XCO2.L

• 1D: 0.54%
• 1M: -1.83%
• YTD: -0.35%
• 6M: 0.29%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PLAN.L

• 1D: 1.09%
• 1M: -1.41%
• YTD: -1.30%
• 6M: -0.30%
• 1Y: 13.56%
• 3Y*: 6.19%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XCO2.L vs. PLAN.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XCO2.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than PLAN.L's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

PLAN.L

Lyxor Corporate Green Bond (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc

XCO2.L

Lyxor Global Green Bond 1-10 Y (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc

Return for Risk

XCO2.L vs. PLAN.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

PLAN.L

PLAN.L Risk / Return Rank: 63
PLAN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
PLAN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
PLAN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 60
PLAN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
PLAN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 55

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.

XCO2.L vs. PLAN.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor Global Green Bond 1-10 Y (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (XCO2.L) and Lyxor Corporate Green Bond (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (PLAN.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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	XCO2.L	PLAN.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	1.48	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.92	-0.02	+0.94

Correlation

The correlation between XCO2.L and PLAN.L is 0.60, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

XCO2.L vs. PLAN.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XCO2.L nor PLAN.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Drawdowns

XCO2.L vs. PLAN.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XCO2.L drawdown since its inception was -3.63%, smaller than the maximum PLAN.L drawdown of -27.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XCO2.L and PLAN.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XCO2.L	PLAN.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.63%	-28.76%	+25.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-4.78%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.54%	-3.29%	+0.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.89%	-12.93%	+12.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.35%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	XCO2.L	PLAN.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	2.78%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	5.56%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.37%	9.12%	-4.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.37%	9.95%	-5.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.37%	9.95%	-5.58%