36BZ.DE vs. IQQC.DE
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (36BZ.DE) and iShares China Large Cap UCITS ETF (IQQC.DE).
36BZ.DE and IQQC.DE are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. 36BZ.DE is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI China A Inclusion. It was launched on Apr 8, 2015. IQQC.DE is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the FTSE China 50. It was launched on Oct 21, 2004. Both 36BZ.DE and IQQC.DE are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: 36BZ.DE or IQQC.DE.
Performance
36BZ.DE vs. IQQC.DE - Performance Comparison
Loading data...
Key characteristics
36BZ.DE:
0.39
IQQC.DE:
0.87
36BZ.DE:
0.71
IQQC.DE:
1.43
36BZ.DE:
1.10
IQQC.DE:
1.19
36BZ.DE:
0.23
IQQC.DE:
0.59
36BZ.DE:
0.60
IQQC.DE:
2.89
36BZ.DE:
16.24%
IQQC.DE:
9.62%
36BZ.DE:
28.57%
IQQC.DE:
30.50%
36BZ.DE:
-53.30%
IQQC.DE:
-67.50%
36BZ.DE:
-31.97%
IQQC.DE:
-28.04%
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, 36BZ.DE achieves a -8.35% return, which is significantly lower than IQQC.DE's 5.86% return. Over the past 10 years, 36BZ.DE has underperformed IQQC.DE with an annualized return of -0.75%, while IQQC.DE has yielded a comparatively higher -0.06% annualized return.
36BZ.DE
- YTD
- -8.35%
- 1M
- 0.93%
- 6M
- -3.98%
- 1Y
- 11.29%
- 3Y*
- -9.38%
- 5Y*
- -3.06%
- 10Y*
- -0.75%
IQQC.DE
- YTD
- 5.86%
- 1M
- -1.72%
- 6M
- 6.96%
- 1Y
- 26.80%
- 3Y*
- -1.36%
- 5Y*
- -3.52%
- 10Y*
- -0.06%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
36BZ.DE vs. IQQC.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison
36BZ.DE has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than IQQC.DE's 0.74% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
36BZ.DE vs. IQQC.DE — Risk-Adjusted Performance Rank
36BZ.DE
IQQC.DE
36BZ.DE vs. IQQC.DE - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (36BZ.DE) and iShares China Large Cap UCITS ETF (IQQC.DE). 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.
Loading data...
Correlation
The correlation between 36BZ.DE and IQQC.DE is 0.28, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Dividends
36BZ.DE vs. IQQC.DE - Dividend Comparison
Neither 36BZ.DE nor IQQC.DE has paid dividends to shareholders.
| TTM | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
36BZ.DE iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IQQC.DE iShares China Large Cap UCITS ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 2.51% | 1.85% | 2.51% | 2.45% | 3.03% | 2.38% | 2.33% | 2.63% | 2.36% |
Drawdowns
36BZ.DE vs. IQQC.DE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum 36BZ.DE drawdown since its inception was -53.30%, smaller than the maximum IQQC.DE drawdown of -67.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for 36BZ.DE and IQQC.DE.
Loading data...
Volatility
36BZ.DE vs. IQQC.DE - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (36BZ.DE) is 2.75%, while iShares China Large Cap UCITS ETF (IQQC.DE) has a volatility of 5.25%. This indicates that 36BZ.DE experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IQQC.DE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading data...