PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XCX5.L vs. LGAG.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XCX5.L vs. LGAG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI India Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCX5.L) and L&G Asia Pacific ex Japan Equity UCITS ETF (LGAG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XCX5.L achieves a -12.70% return, which is significantly lower than LGAG.L's 8.78% return.


XCX5.L

1D
1.26%
1M
-1.73%
YTD
-12.70%
6M
-12.76%
1Y
-12.07%
3Y*
2.47%
5Y*
4.13%
10Y*
7.44%

LGAG.L

1D
-0.69%
1M
0.27%
YTD
8.78%
6M
9.30%
1Y
17.23%
3Y*
10.29%
5Y*
5.68%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XCX5.L vs. LGAG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
XCX5.L
Xtrackers MSCI India Swap UCITS ETF 1C
-12.70%-5.16%11.92%12.56%2.33%26.19%9.49%2.58%7.62%
LGAG.L
L&G Asia Pacific ex Japan Equity UCITS ETF
8.78%12.56%6.20%-0.81%5.61%4.15%4.80%14.08%-22.77%

Correlation

The correlation between XCX5.L and LGAG.L is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.37

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.32

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.35

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 12, 2018

0.45

The correlation between XCX5.L and LGAG.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.32 (3 years) to 0.45 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XCX5.L vs. LGAG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
XCX5.L
LGAG.L

Financial Services

28.3%
41.2%

Consumer Cyclical

12.4%
6.4%

Industrials

10.2%
9.2%

Energy

9.5%
3.1%

Basic Materials

8.5%
16.4%

Technology

8.2%
1.9%

Consumer Defensive

6.2%
3.1%

Healthcare

6.1%
3.9%

Communication Services

4.7%
3.7%

Utilities

4.5%
2.7%

Real Estate

1.3%
8.6%

Financial Services

XCX5.L
28.3%
LGAG.L
41.2%

Consumer Cyclical

XCX5.L
12.4%
LGAG.L
6.4%

Industrials

XCX5.L
10.2%
LGAG.L
9.2%

Energy

XCX5.L
9.5%
LGAG.L
3.1%

Basic Materials

XCX5.L
8.5%
LGAG.L
16.4%

Technology

XCX5.L
8.2%
LGAG.L
1.9%

Consumer Defensive

XCX5.L
6.2%
LGAG.L
3.1%

Healthcare

XCX5.L
6.1%
LGAG.L
3.9%

Communication Services

XCX5.L
4.7%
LGAG.L
3.7%

Utilities

XCX5.L
4.5%
LGAG.L
2.7%

Real Estate

XCX5.L
1.3%
LGAG.L
8.6%

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

XCX5.L vs. LGAG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XCX5.L
XCX5.L Risk / Return Rank: 33
Overall Rank
XCX5.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XCX5.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
Sortino Ratio Rank
XCX5.L Omega Ratio Rank: 33
Omega Ratio Rank
XCX5.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
Calmar Ratio Rank
XCX5.L Martin Ratio Rank: 22
Martin Ratio Rank

LGAG.L
LGAG.L Risk / Return Rank: 4646
Overall Rank
LGAG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4545
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LGAG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4747
Sortino Ratio Rank
LGAG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
LGAG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4949
Calmar Ratio Rank
LGAG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4444
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

XCX5.L vs. LGAG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI India Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCX5.L) and L&G Asia Pacific ex Japan Equity UCITS ETF (LGAG.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.


XCX5.LLGAG.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.31

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-3.31

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.89

1.28

-0.39

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.60

2.37

-2.98

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-1.37

6.97

-8.33

XCX5.L vs. LGAG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XCX5.L Sharpe Ratio is -0.76, which is lower than the LGAG.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XCX5.L and LGAG.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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


XCX5.LLGAG.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.76

1.55

-2.31

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.26

0.28

-0.02

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.37

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.23

0.16

+0.06

Drawdowns

XCX5.L vs. LGAG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XCX5.L drawdown since its inception was -41.74%, which is greater than LGAG.L's maximum drawdown of -35.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XCX5.L and LGAG.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XCX5.LLGAG.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-41.74%

-35.16%

-6.58%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-19.88%

-7.24%

-12.64%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.47%

-24.83%

-1.64%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.47%

-24.83%

-1.64%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-37.35%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-23.06%

-3.09%

-19.97%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.04%

-10.11%

-0.93%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.81%

2.47%

+6.34%

Volatility

XCX5.L vs. LGAG.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers MSCI India Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCX5.L) has a higher volatility of 6.39% compared to L&G Asia Pacific ex Japan Equity UCITS ETF (LGAG.L) at 3.98%. This indicates that XCX5.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LGAG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XCX5.LLGAG.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.39%

3.98%

+2.41%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.26%

8.63%

+4.63%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.78%

11.11%

+4.67%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.92%

20.57%

-4.65%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.89%

22.27%

-2.38%

XCX5.L vs. LGAG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XCX5.L has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than LGAG.L's 0.10% expense ratio.


Dividends

XCX5.L vs. LGAG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XCX5.L nor LGAG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


XCX5.L and LGAG.L have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, LGAG.L is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

LGAG.L is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for XCX5.L.

XCX5.L tracks MSCI India NR USD, while LGAG.L tracks MSCI Pacific Ex Japan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and Legal & General. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for XCX5.L and 0.10% for LGAG.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XCX5.L and LGAG.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