XCX6.L vs. LCCN.L
XCX6.L (Xtrackers MSCI China UCITS ETF 1C) and LCCN.L (Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China NR USD, from DWS and Amundi respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XCX6.L returned -4.51%/yr vs -3.86%/yr for LCCN.L. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. XCX6.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for LCCN.L.
Performance
XCX6.L vs. LCCN.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
XCX6.L is traded in GBp, while LCCN.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the LCCN.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XCX6.L achieves a -7.52% return, which is significantly lower than LCCN.L's -6.66% return.
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%
LCCN.L
- 1D
- -0.13%
- 1M
- -1.74%
- YTD
- -6.66%
- 6M
- -9.04%
- 1Y
- 6.01%
- 3Y*
- 8.23%
- 5Y*
- -3.86%
- 10Y*
- —
XCX6.L vs. LCCN.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XCX6.L Xtrackers MSCI China UCITS ETF 1C | -7.52% | 22.42% | 20.57% | -17.10% | -13.36% | -21.25% | 25.03% | 17.56% | 1.69% |
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc | -6.66% | 22.63% | 21.46% | -16.03% | -12.96% | -21.13% | 25.98% | 17.23% | 2.09% |
Correlation
The correlation between XCX6.L and LCCN.L is 0.97 - 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 | 0.97 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.98 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.98 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2018 | 0.97 |
The correlation between XCX6.L and LCCN.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.97 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.
XCX6.L vs. LCCN.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XCX6.L
LCCN.L
Consumer Cyclical
Financial Services
Communication Services
Technology
Basic Materials
Healthcare
Industrials
Energy
Consumer Defensive
Utilities
Real Estate
Consumer Cyclical
XCX6.L
LCCN.L
Financial Services
XCX6.L
LCCN.L
Communication Services
XCX6.L
LCCN.L
Technology
XCX6.L
LCCN.L
Basic Materials
XCX6.L
LCCN.L
Healthcare
XCX6.L
LCCN.L
Industrials
XCX6.L
LCCN.L
Energy
XCX6.L
LCCN.L
Consumer Defensive
XCX6.L
LCCN.L
Utilities
XCX6.L
LCCN.L
Real Estate
XCX6.L
LCCN.L
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
XCX6.L vs. LCCN.L — Risk / Return Rank
XCX6.L
LCCN.L
XCX6.L vs. LCCN.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 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.
| XCX6.L | LCCN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.03 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.05 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.06 | 1.07 | -0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.29 | 0.35 | -0.06 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.62 | 0.74 | -0.13 |
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
| XCX6.L | LCCN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.28 | 0.31 | -0.03 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.16 | -0.14 | -0.03 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.21 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.15 | 0.09 | +0.05 |
Drawdowns
XCX6.L vs. LCCN.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XCX6.L drawdown since its inception was -57.08%, roughly equal to the maximum LCCN.L drawdown of -56.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XCX6.L and LCCN.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XCX6.L | LCCN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -57.08% | -56.30% | -0.78% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -17.48% | -17.02% | -0.46% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.89% | -24.76% | -0.13% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -49.99% | -49.10% | -0.89% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -57.08% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -34.10% | -31.69% | -2.41% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -20.91% | -27.00% | +6.09% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.35% | 8.07% | +0.28% |
Volatility
XCX6.L vs. LCCN.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Xtrackers MSCI China UCITS ETF 1C (XCX6.L) is 7.09%, while Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) has a volatility of 7.53%. This indicates that XCX6.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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XCX6.L | LCCN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.09% | 7.53% | -0.44% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.08% | 14.15% | -1.07% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.39% | 19.53% | -1.14% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 27.71% | 28.03% | -0.32% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.27% | 26.94% | -1.67% |
XCX6.L vs. LCCN.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
XCX6.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than LCCN.L's 0.29% expense ratio.
Dividends
XCX6.L vs. LCCN.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither XCX6.L nor LCCN.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.97, XCX6.L and LCCN.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, LCCN.L is cheaper at 0.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
LCCN.L is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for XCX6.L.
Both ETFs track MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: DWS and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for XCX6.L and 0.29% for LCCN.L.
Find the right allocation for XCX6.L and LCCN.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