ASHS vs. MCHS

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

ASHS (Xtrackers Harvest CSI 500 China A-Shares Small Cap ETF) and MCHS (Matthews China Discovery Active ETF) are both China Equities funds. ASHS is passively managed, while MCHS is actively managed. Over the past year, ASHS returned 61.77% vs 76.59% for MCHS. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ASHS charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for MCHS.

Performance

ASHS vs. MCHS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers Harvest CSI 500 China A-Shares Small Cap ETF (ASHS) 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, ASHS achieves a 21.06% return, which is significantly lower than MCHS's 51.65% return.

ASHS

• 1D: 0.83%
• 1M: 2.82%
• YTD: 21.06%
• 6M: 23.45%
• 1Y: 61.77%
• 3Y*: 16.85%
• 5Y*: 4.93%
• 10Y*: 4.14%

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)

ASHS vs. MCHS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ASHS Xtrackers Harvest CSI 500 China A-Shares Small Cap ETF	21.06%	39.48%	9.01%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	51.65%	31.19%	6.53%

Correlation

The correlation between ASHS and MCHS is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2024	0.75

The correlation between ASHS and MCHS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

ASHS vs. MCHS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ASHS	MCHS
Technology	33.2%	49.7%
Industrials	18.7%	27.8%
Basic Materials	16.5%	8.1%
Healthcare	6.2%	2.1%
Consumer Cyclical	5.3%	4.5%
Financial Services	5.3%	-
Utilities	2.3%	2.1%
Energy	2.2%	6.3%
Consumer Defensive	1.7%	0.8%
Communication Services	1.3%	1.2%
Real Estate	0.5%	1.6%

Return for Risk

ASHS vs. MCHS — Risk / Return Rank

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

ASHS

ASHS Risk / Return Rank: 85
ASHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
ASHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
ASHS Omega Ratio Rank: 82
ASHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
ASHS Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

ASHS vs. MCHS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers Harvest CSI 500 China A-Shares Small Cap ETF (ASHS) 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.

	ASHS	MCHS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.67	3.08	-0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.36	3.78	-0.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.53	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.43	6.34	-1.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.82	18.43	-4.61

ASHS vs. MCHS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ASHS Sharpe Ratio is 2.67, which is comparable to the MCHS Sharpe Ratio of 3.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ASHS 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

ASHS vs. MCHS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ASHS drawdown since its inception was -69.90%, which is greater than MCHS's maximum drawdown of -23.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ASHS and MCHS.

Drawdown Indicators

	ASHS	MCHS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-69.90%	-23.75%	-46.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.03%	-12.15%	-1.88%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-34.13%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-47.81%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-47.81%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-30.13%	-4.48%	-25.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-48.48%	-7.52%	-40.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.48%	4.17%	+0.31%

Volatility

ASHS vs. MCHS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers Harvest CSI 500 China A-Shares Small Cap ETF (ASHS) is 7.73%, while Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) has a volatility of 13.29%. This indicates that ASHS 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

	ASHS	MCHS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.73%	13.29%	-5.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.91%	21.61%	-3.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.32%	25.10%	-1.78%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.60%	28.92%	-2.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.59%	28.92%	-3.33%

ASHS vs. MCHS - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

ASHS vs. MCHS - Dividend Comparison

ASHS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while MCHS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.35%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ASHS Xtrackers Harvest CSI 500 China A-Shares Small Cap ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.69%	0.65%	1.90%	0.76%	0.43%	0.57%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	8.34%
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 ASHS and MCHS in my portfolio?

ASHS and MCHS have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ASHS or MCHS?

MCHS has higher volatility (13.29%) compared to ASHS (7.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ASHS dropped -69.90% vs MCHS's -23.75%.

Which ETF is better, ASHS or MCHS?

On 1-year performance, MCHS leads with 76.59% vs 61.77% for ASHS. On fees, ASHS is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, ASHS has been the lower-risk option at 7.73%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ASHS or MCHS?

Over the 1-year period, MCHS has performed better with a 76.59% return vs 61.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ASHS or MCHS?

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

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

MCHS has the higher dividend yield at 2.35%, compared with 0.00% for ASHS.

What is the main difference between ASHS and MCHS?

They also come from different issuers: Deutsche Bank and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for ASHS and 0.89% for MCHS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.08 vs 2.67), 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.