PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XCX6.L vs. HMCH.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XCX6.L vs. HMCH.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XCX6.L (Xtrackers MSCI China UCITS ETF 1C) and HMCH.L (HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China NR USD, from DWS and HSBC respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XCX6.L returned 5.39%/yr vs 5.59%/yr for HMCH.L. With a 0.95 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. XCX6.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for HMCH.L.

Performance

XCX6.L vs. HMCH.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI China UCITS ETF 1C (XCX6.L) and HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCH.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with XCX6.L having a -7.52% return and HMCH.L slightly higher at -7.28%. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with XCX6.L having a 5.39% annualized return and HMCH.L not far ahead at 5.59%.

XCX6.L

1D
-0.40%
1M
-1.77%
YTD
-7.52%
6M
-9.53%
1Y
5.17%
3Y*
7.33%
5Y*
-4.51%
10Y*
5.39%

HMCH.L

1D
-0.65%
1M
-1.85%
YTD
-7.28%
6M
-8.93%
1Y
5.82%
3Y*
7.83%
5Y*
-4.14%
10Y*
5.59%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XCX6.L vs. HMCH.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XCX6.L
Xtrackers MSCI China UCITS ETF 1C		-7.52%22.42%20.57%-17.10%-13.36%-21.25%25.03%17.56%-14.28%40.17%
HMCH.L
HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF		-7.28%22.87%20.73%-16.33%-13.40%-21.06%24.96%17.80%-14.28%40.24%

Correlation

The correlation between XCX6.L and HMCH.L is 0.99 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

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

0.99

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

0.99

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

1.00

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

1.00

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 31, 2011

0.95

The correlation between XCX6.L and HMCH.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 1.00 - a consistent structural relationship.

XCX6.L vs. HMCH.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XCX6.L
HMCH.L

Consumer Cyclical

26.5%
26.1%

Financial Services

19.1%
19.2%

Communication Services

18.8%
18.4%

Technology

9.6%
10.7%

Basic Materials

5.5%
5.3%

Healthcare

5.4%
5.1%

Industrials

5.0%
5.4%

Energy

3.7%
3.5%

Consumer Defensive

3.2%
3.0%

Utilities

1.7%
1.7%

Real Estate

1.5%
1.7%

Consumer Cyclical

XCX6.L
26.5%
HMCH.L
26.1%

Financial Services

XCX6.L
19.1%
HMCH.L
19.2%

Communication Services

XCX6.L
18.8%
HMCH.L
18.4%

Technology

XCX6.L
9.6%
HMCH.L
10.7%

Basic Materials

XCX6.L
5.5%
HMCH.L
5.3%

Healthcare

XCX6.L
5.4%
HMCH.L
5.1%

Industrials

XCX6.L
5.0%
HMCH.L
5.4%

Energy

XCX6.L
3.7%
HMCH.L
3.5%

Consumer Defensive

XCX6.L
3.2%
HMCH.L
3.0%

Utilities

XCX6.L
1.7%
HMCH.L
1.7%

Real Estate

XCX6.L
1.5%
HMCH.L
1.7%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Xtrackers MSCI China UCITS ETF 1C

HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF

Often compared with XCX6.L:
XCX6.L vs. FXC.LXCX6.L vs. IUIT.LXCX6.L vs. RQFI.LXCX6.L vs. XUIN.LXCX6.L vs. C300.LXCX6.L vs. XEUM.LXCX6.L vs. XBCU.L
Often compared with HMCH.L:
HMCH.L vs. HMCD.LHMCH.L vs. XCHA.DEHMCH.L vs. HMCT.LHMCH.L vs. VOOHMCH.L vs. BYDDYHMCH.L vs. ^GSPCHMCH.L vs. VUSA.AS

Return for Risk

XCX6.L vs. HMCH.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XCX6.L
XCX6.L Risk / Return Rank: 1313
Overall Rank
XCX6.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1313
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XCX6.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1313
Sortino Ratio Rank
XCX6.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1313
Omega Ratio Rank
XCX6.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1313
Calmar Ratio Rank
XCX6.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1212
Martin Ratio Rank
HMCH.L
HMCH.L Risk / Return Rank: 1313
Overall Rank
HMCH.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1414
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HMCH.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1414
Sortino Ratio Rank
HMCH.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1414
Omega Ratio Rank
HMCH.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1313
Calmar Ratio Rank
HMCH.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1212
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.

XCX6.L vs. HMCH.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI China UCITS ETF 1C (XCX6.L) and HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCH.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.

XCX6.LHMCH.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.28
0.32

-0.03

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.52
0.57

-0.05

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.06

1.07

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.29

0.34

-0.04

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.62

0.71

-0.09

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XCX6.L vs. HMCH.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XCX6.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.28, which is comparable to the HMCH.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XCX6.L and HMCH.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

XCX6.LHMCH.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.28

0.32

-0.03

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.16

-0.15

-0.01

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.21

0.22

-0.01

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.15

0.16

-0.02

Drawdowns

XCX6.L vs. HMCH.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XCX6.L drawdown since its inception was -57.08%, roughly equal to the maximum HMCH.L drawdown of -56.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XCX6.L and HMCH.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XCX6.LHMCH.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-57.08%

-56.50%

-0.58%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.48%

-17.18%

-0.30%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.89%

-24.67%

-0.22%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-49.99%

-49.31%

-0.68%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-57.08%

-56.50%

-0.58%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-34.10%

-32.69%

-1.41%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-20.91%

-20.25%

-0.66%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.35%

8.17%

+0.18%

Volatility

XCX6.L vs. HMCH.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers MSCI China UCITS ETF 1C (XCX6.L) and HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCH.L) have volatilities of 7.09% and 7.06%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XCX6.LHMCH.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.09%

7.06%

+0.03%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.08%

13.14%

-0.06%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.39%

18.44%

-0.05%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

27.71%

27.67%

+0.04%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.27%

25.21%

+0.06%

XCX6.L vs. HMCH.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XCX6.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than HMCH.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

XCX6.L vs. HMCH.L - Dividend Comparison

XCX6.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while HMCH.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.15%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
HMCH.L
HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF		2.15%2.34%2.17%2.12%1.85%1.28%0.92%1.65%1.36%0.78%1.89%2.84%
XCX6.L
Xtrackers MSCI China UCITS ETF 1C		0.00%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

With a correlation of 0.99, XCX6.L and HMCH.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

On fees, HMCH.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

HMCH.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for XCX6.L.

Both ETFs track MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: DWS and HSBC. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for XCX6.L and 0.30% for HMCH.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XCX6.L and HMCH.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