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

Performance

AH50.L vs. XDWH.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 MSCI World Health Care UCITS ETF 1C (XDWH.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AH50.L achieves a 12.41% return, which is significantly higher than XDWH.L's -2.74% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with AH50.L having a 7.74% annualized return and XDWH.L not far ahead at 7.85%.


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%

XDWH.L

1D
2.99%
1M
3.25%
YTD
-2.74%
6M
-1.64%
1Y
11.56%
3Y*
5.50%
5Y*
4.54%
10Y*
7.85%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AH50.L vs. XDWH.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%
XDWH.L
Xtrackers MSCI World Health Care UCITS ETF 1C
-2.74%15.25%0.75%3.81%-5.42%20.56%12.88%22.95%1.57%20.16%

Correlation

The correlation between AH50.L and XDWH.L is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.24

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

0.18

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

0.22

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

0.34

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

0.33

The correlation between AH50.L and XDWH.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.18 (3 years) to 0.34 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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


Sectors
AH50.L
XDWH.L

Technology

27.6%

-

Industrials

20.4%

-

Basic Materials

14.3%

-

Financial Services

11.4%

-

Consumer Cyclical

7.5%

-

Healthcare

6.1%
98.9%

Consumer Defensive

5.3%
0.5%

Energy

2.6%

-

Utilities

2.4%

-

Communication Services

1.8%

-

Real Estate

0.7%

-

Technology

AH50.L
27.6%
XDWH.L

-

Industrials

AH50.L
20.4%
XDWH.L

-

Basic Materials

AH50.L
14.3%
XDWH.L

-

Financial Services

AH50.L
11.4%
XDWH.L

-

Consumer Cyclical

AH50.L
7.5%
XDWH.L

-

Healthcare

AH50.L
6.1%
XDWH.L
98.9%

Consumer Defensive

AH50.L
5.3%
XDWH.L
0.5%

Energy

AH50.L
2.6%
XDWH.L

-

Utilities

AH50.L
2.4%
XDWH.L

-

Communication Services

AH50.L
1.8%
XDWH.L

-

Real Estate

AH50.L
0.7%
XDWH.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

AH50.L vs. XDWH.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

XDWH.L
XDWH.L Risk / Return Rank: 2424
Overall Rank
XDWH.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2323
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XDWH.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2424
Sortino Ratio Rank
XDWH.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2323
Omega Ratio Rank
XDWH.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
XDWH.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2323
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. XDWH.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 MSCI World Health Care UCITS ETF 1C (XDWH.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.LXDWH.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.10

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.29

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.34

1.15

+0.19

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.11

1.11

+3.00

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.57

2.80

+9.76

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

The current AH50.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.89, which is higher than the XDWH.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AH50.L and XDWH.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.LXDWH.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.89

0.79

+1.10

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.01

0.32

-0.31

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.33

0.52

-0.19

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.33

0.57

-0.24

Drawdowns

AH50.L vs. XDWH.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AH50.L drawdown since its inception was -50.58%, which is greater than XDWH.L's maximum drawdown of -26.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AH50.L and XDWH.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


AH50.LXDWH.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-50.58%

-26.24%

-24.34%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.30%

-10.39%

+2.09%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.95%

-19.28%

-6.67%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-45.27%

-19.28%

-25.99%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-50.58%

-26.24%

-24.34%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.78%

-5.82%

-2.96%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-21.40%

-4.98%

-16.42%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.72%

4.12%

-1.40%

Volatility

AH50.L vs. XDWH.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers Harvest FTSE China A-H 50 UCITS ETF 1D (AH50.L) has a higher volatility of 6.50% compared to Xtrackers MSCI World Health Care UCITS ETF 1C (XDWH.L) at 4.80%. This indicates that AH50.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XDWH.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


AH50.LXDWH.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.50%

4.80%

+1.70%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.07%

10.77%

+2.30%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.04%

14.57%

+3.47%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.33%

14.18%

+10.15%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.38%

14.97%

+8.41%

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

AH50.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than XDWH.L's 0.25% expense ratio.


Dividends

AH50.L vs. XDWH.L - Dividend Comparison

AH50.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.08%, while XDWH.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%
XDWH.L
Xtrackers MSCI World Health Care UCITS ETF 1C
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


AH50.L and XDWH.L have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XDWH.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XDWH.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AH50.L.

AH50.L is categorized as China Equities, while XDWH.L is Health & Biotech Equities. AH50.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while XDWH.L tracks MSCI World/Health Care NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for AH50.L and 0.25% for XDWH.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for AH50.L and XDWH.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