ASHR vs. MCHS

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

ASHR (Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF) and MCHS (Matthews China Discovery Active ETF) are both China Equities funds. ASHR is passively managed, while MCHS is actively managed. Over the past year, ASHR returned 34.40% vs 76.59% for MCHS. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ASHR charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for MCHS.

Performance

ASHR vs. MCHS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF (ASHR) and Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ASHR achieves a 9.16% return, which is significantly lower than MCHS's 51.65% return.

ASHR

• 1D: -0.55%
• 1M: 1.44%
• YTD: 9.16%
• 6M: 9.26%
• 1Y: 34.40%
• 3Y*: 12.55%
• 5Y*: -0.97%
• 10Y*: 5.90%

MCHS

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 6.47%
• YTD: 51.65%
• 6M: 50.30%
• 1Y: 76.59%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ASHR vs. MCHS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ASHR Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF	9.16%	27.02%	18.44%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	51.65%	31.19%	6.53%

Correlation

The correlation between ASHR and MCHS is 0.65, 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	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2024	0.72

The correlation between ASHR and MCHS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

ASHR vs. MCHS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ASHR	MCHS
Technology	31.1%	49.7%
Financial Services	19.1%	-
Industrials	16.1%	27.8%
Basic Materials	9.4%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	6.7%	0.8%
Consumer Cyclical	6.4%	4.5%
Healthcare	4.4%	2.1%
Utilities	3.1%	2.1%
Energy	2.5%	6.3%
Communication Services	0.8%	1.2%
Real Estate	0.4%	1.6%

Return for Risk

ASHR vs. MCHS — Risk / Return Rank

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

ASHR

ASHR Risk / Return Rank: 72
ASHR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
ASHR Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
ASHR Omega Ratio Rank: 64
ASHR Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
ASHR Martin Ratio Rank: 76

MCHS

MCHS Risk / Return Rank: 92
MCHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
MCHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
MCHS Omega Ratio Rank: 91
MCHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
MCHS Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

ASHR vs. MCHS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF (ASHR) and Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	ASHR	MCHS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.94	3.08	-1.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.69	3.78	-1.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.53	-0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.49	6.34	-1.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.97	18.43	-5.47

ASHR vs. MCHS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ASHR Sharpe Ratio is 1.94, which is lower than the MCHS Sharpe Ratio of 3.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ASHR and MCHS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ASHR vs. MCHS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ASHR drawdown since its inception was -51.30%, which is greater than MCHS's maximum drawdown of -23.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ASHR and MCHS.

Drawdown Indicators

	ASHR	MCHS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.30%	-23.75%	-27.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.69%	-12.15%	+4.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-33.12%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.59%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-51.30%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.36%	-4.48%	-11.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.12%	-7.52%	-21.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.66%	4.17%	-1.51%

Volatility

ASHR vs. MCHS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF (ASHR) is 7.34%, while Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) has a volatility of 13.29%. This indicates that ASHR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MCHS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ASHR	MCHS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.34%	13.29%	-5.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.96%	21.61%	-8.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.89%	25.10%	-7.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.01%	28.92%	-4.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.09%	28.92%	-4.83%

ASHR vs. MCHS - Expense Ratio Comparison

ASHR has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than MCHS's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

ASHR vs. MCHS - Dividend Comparison

ASHR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.11%, less than MCHS's 2.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ASHR Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF	2.11%	2.31%	1.13%	2.48%	1.13%	0.88%	0.81%	0.98%	1.32%	0.84%	0.73%	30.13%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	2.35%	3.56%	5.48%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ASHR and MCHS in my portfolio?

ASHR and MCHS have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ASHR or MCHS?

MCHS has higher volatility (13.29%) compared to ASHR (7.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ASHR dropped -51.30% vs MCHS's -23.75%.

Which ETF is better, ASHR or MCHS?

On 1-year performance, MCHS leads with 76.59% vs 34.40% for ASHR. On fees, ASHR is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, ASHR has been the lower-risk option at 7.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ASHR or MCHS?

Over the 1-year period, MCHS has performed better with a 76.59% return vs 34.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ASHR or MCHS?

ASHR is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for MCHS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ASHR or MCHS?

MCHS has the higher dividend yield at 2.35%, compared with 2.11% for ASHR.

What is the main difference between ASHR and MCHS?

They also come from different issuers: DWS and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for ASHR and 0.89% for MCHS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.08 vs 1.94), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.