PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
AH50.L vs. M9SV.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

AH50.L vs. M9SV.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D (AH50.L) and Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF (M9SV.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

AH50.L is traded in USD, while M9SV.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the M9SV.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AH50.L achieves a 12.41% return, which is significantly higher than M9SV.L's -2.17% return.


AH50.L

1D
-0.30%
1M
1.76%
YTD
12.41%
6M
17.72%
1Y
34.29%
3Y*
16.08%
5Y*
0.20%
10Y*
7.74%

M9SV.L

1D
-0.78%
1M
-2.60%
YTD
-2.17%
6M
-0.99%
1Y
6.61%
3Y*
9.35%
5Y*
3.80%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AH50.L vs. M9SV.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
AH50.L
Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D
12.41%26.76%17.77%-13.04%-21.01%-6.02%28.04%34.30%-6.02%
M9SV.L
Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF
-2.17%8.52%28.14%6.19%-16.41%6.55%26.49%9.91%-7.07%

Correlation

The correlation between AH50.L and M9SV.L is 0.55, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


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

0.55

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

0.54

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

0.57

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 7, 2018

0.62

The correlation between AH50.L and M9SV.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

AH50.L vs. M9SV.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
AH50.L
M9SV.L

Technology

27.6%
4.9%

Industrials

20.4%
18.4%

Basic Materials

14.3%
2.4%

Financial Services

11.4%
24.5%

Consumer Cyclical

7.5%
11.9%

Healthcare

6.1%
4.8%

Consumer Defensive

5.3%
6.8%

Energy

2.6%
7.4%

Utilities

2.4%
13.9%

Communication Services

1.8%
4.5%

Real Estate

0.7%
0.5%

Technology

AH50.L
27.6%
M9SV.L
4.9%

Industrials

AH50.L
20.4%
M9SV.L
18.4%

Basic Materials

AH50.L
14.3%
M9SV.L
2.4%

Financial Services

AH50.L
11.4%
M9SV.L
24.5%

Consumer Cyclical

AH50.L
7.5%
M9SV.L
11.9%

Healthcare

AH50.L
6.1%
M9SV.L
4.8%

Consumer Defensive

AH50.L
5.3%
M9SV.L
6.8%

Energy

AH50.L
2.6%
M9SV.L
7.4%

Utilities

AH50.L
2.4%
M9SV.L
13.9%

Communication Services

AH50.L
1.8%
M9SV.L
4.5%

Real Estate

AH50.L
0.7%
M9SV.L
0.5%

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

AH50.L vs. M9SV.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

AH50.L
AH50.L Risk / Return Rank: 6363
Overall Rank
AH50.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5757
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AH50.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5454
Sortino Ratio Rank
AH50.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5656
Omega Ratio Rank
AH50.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
AH50.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
Martin Ratio Rank

M9SV.L
M9SV.L Risk / Return Rank: 2020
Overall Rank
M9SV.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2020
Sharpe Ratio Rank
M9SV.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1919
Sortino Ratio Rank
M9SV.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1818
Omega Ratio Rank
M9SV.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
M9SV.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2121
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.

AH50.L vs. M9SV.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D (AH50.L) and Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF (M9SV.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.


AH50.LM9SV.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.36

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.76

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.34

1.10

+0.24

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.11

0.82

+3.29

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.57

2.56

+10.01

AH50.L vs. M9SV.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AH50.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.89, which is higher than the M9SV.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AH50.L and M9SV.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


AH50.LM9SV.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.89

0.53

+1.36

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.01

0.18

-0.17

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.33

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.33

0.32

+0.01

Drawdowns

AH50.L vs. M9SV.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AH50.L drawdown since its inception was -50.58%, which is greater than M9SV.L's maximum drawdown of -30.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AH50.L and M9SV.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


AH50.LM9SV.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-50.58%

-30.47%

-20.11%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.30%

-7.99%

-0.31%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.95%

-23.59%

-2.36%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-45.27%

-30.22%

-15.05%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-50.58%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.78%

-9.65%

+0.87%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-21.40%

-9.94%

-11.46%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.72%

2.58%

+0.14%

Volatility

AH50.L vs. M9SV.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D (AH50.L) has a higher volatility of 6.50% compared to Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF (M9SV.L) at 3.38%. This indicates that AH50.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than M9SV.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


AH50.LM9SV.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.50%

3.38%

+3.12%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.07%

8.18%

+4.89%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.04%

12.40%

+5.64%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.33%

20.84%

+3.49%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.38%

21.00%

+2.38%

AH50.L vs. M9SV.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

AH50.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than M9SV.L's 0.45% expense ratio.


Dividends

AH50.L vs. M9SV.L - Dividend Comparison

AH50.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.08%, while M9SV.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020
AH50.L
Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D
2.08%2.79%2.37%2.72%3.00%1.78%1.57%
M9SV.L
Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


AH50.L and M9SV.L have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, M9SV.L is cheaper at 0.45% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

M9SV.L is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AH50.L.

AH50.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while M9SV.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and China Post Global. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for AH50.L and 0.45% for M9SV.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for AH50.L and M9SV.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