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

Performance

AH50.L vs. XDJP.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 Xtrackers Nikkei 225 UCITS ETF 1D (XDJP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

AH50.L is traded in USD, while XDJP.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the XDJP.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 lower than XDJP.L's 31.66% return. Over the past 10 years, AH50.L has underperformed XDJP.L with an annualized return of 7.74%, while XDJP.L has yielded a comparatively higher 12.31% annualized 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%

XDJP.L

1D
-1.30%
1M
10.01%
YTD
31.66%
6M
30.19%
1Y
62.73%
3Y*
24.07%
5Y*
11.43%
10Y*
12.31%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%-21.35%34.04%
XDJP.L
Xtrackers Nikkei 225 UCITS ETF 1D
31.66%30.18%7.85%21.61%-19.86%-4.66%25.50%21.26%-8.99%25.66%

Correlation

The correlation between AH50.L and XDJP.L is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.35

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

0.33

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

0.36

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

0.41

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 31, 2016

0.41

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


Sectors
AH50.L
XDJP.L

Technology

27.6%
31.9%

Industrials

20.4%
19.4%

Basic Materials

14.3%
4.3%

Financial Services

11.4%
3.1%

Consumer Cyclical

7.5%
16.9%

Healthcare

6.1%
6.7%

Consumer Defensive

5.3%
3.3%

Energy

2.6%
0.3%

Utilities

2.4%
0.2%

Communication Services

1.8%
12.4%

Real Estate

0.7%
1.5%

Technology

AH50.L
27.6%
XDJP.L
31.9%

Industrials

AH50.L
20.4%
XDJP.L
19.4%

Basic Materials

AH50.L
14.3%
XDJP.L
4.3%

Financial Services

AH50.L
11.4%
XDJP.L
3.1%

Consumer Cyclical

AH50.L
7.5%
XDJP.L
16.9%

Healthcare

AH50.L
6.1%
XDJP.L
6.7%

Consumer Defensive

AH50.L
5.3%
XDJP.L
3.3%

Energy

AH50.L
2.6%
XDJP.L
0.3%

Utilities

AH50.L
2.4%
XDJP.L
0.2%

Communication Services

AH50.L
1.8%
XDJP.L
12.4%

Real Estate

AH50.L
0.7%
XDJP.L
1.5%

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. XDJP.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

XDJP.L
XDJP.L Risk / Return Rank: 8484
Overall Rank
XDJP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XDJP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
XDJP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
XDJP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
XDJP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
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. XDJP.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 Xtrackers Nikkei 225 UCITS ETF 1D (XDJP.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.LXDJP.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.65

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.00

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.34

1.42

-0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.11

4.06

+0.05

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.57

13.32

-0.76

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

The current AH50.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.89, which is comparable to the XDJP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AH50.L and XDJP.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.LXDJP.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.89

2.55

-0.65

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.01

0.57

-0.56

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.33

0.68

-0.35

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.33

0.66

-0.33

Drawdowns

AH50.L vs. XDJP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AH50.L drawdown since its inception was -50.58%, which is greater than XDJP.L's maximum drawdown of -35.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AH50.L and XDJP.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


AH50.LXDJP.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-50.58%

-35.79%

-14.79%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.30%

-15.36%

+7.06%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.95%

-19.06%

-6.89%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-45.27%

-33.97%

-11.30%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-50.58%

-35.79%

-14.79%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.78%

-1.30%

-7.48%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-21.40%

-8.91%

-12.49%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.72%

4.69%

-1.97%

Volatility

AH50.L vs. XDJP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D (AH50.L) is 6.50%, while Xtrackers Nikkei 225 UCITS ETF 1D (XDJP.L) has a volatility of 7.26%. This indicates that AH50.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XDJP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


AH50.LXDJP.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.50%

7.26%

-0.76%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.07%

19.36%

-6.29%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.04%

24.50%

-6.46%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.33%

19.97%

+4.36%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.38%

18.97%

+4.41%

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

AH50.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than XDJP.L's 0.09% expense ratio.


Dividends

AH50.L vs. XDJP.L - Dividend Comparison

AH50.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.08%, more than XDJP.L's 1.04% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XDJP.L
Xtrackers Nikkei 225 UCITS ETF 1D
1.04%1.33%1.41%1.59%2.47%1.20%1.11%1.13%1.24%0.72%0.83%0.16%

Frequently Asked Questions


AH50.L and XDJP.L have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XDJP.L is cheaper at 0.09% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XDJP.L is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AH50.L.

AH50.L is categorized as China Equities, while XDJP.L is Japan Equities. AH50.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while XDJP.L tracks TOPIX TR JPY. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for AH50.L and 0.09% for XDJP.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for AH50.L and XDJP.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