ASIA vs. DXJ

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

ASIA (Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF) and DXJ (WisdomTree Japan Hedged Equity Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - ASIA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund actively managed by Matthews, while DXJ is a Japan Equities fund tracking the WisdomTree Japan Hedged Equity Index. ASIA is actively managed, while DXJ is passively managed. Over the past year, ASIA returned 41.39% vs 54.82% for DXJ. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ASIA charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for DXJ.

Performance

ASIA vs. DXJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA) and WisdomTree Japan Hedged Equity Fund (DXJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ASIA achieves a 19.88% return, which is significantly lower than DXJ's 22.23% return.

ASIA

• 1D: -3.99%
• 1M: -6.33%
• 6M: 12.73%
• YTD: 19.88%
• 1Y: 41.39%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DXJ

• 1D: -0.98%
• 1M: 2.95%
• 6M: 14.85%
• YTD: 22.23%
• 1Y: 54.82%
• 3Y*: 32.72%
• 5Y*: 27.03%
• 10Y*: 18.62%

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

ASIA vs. DXJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ASIA Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF	19.88%	32.06%	3.41%	0.01%
DXJ WisdomTree Japan Hedged Equity Fund	22.23%	32.78%	29.83%	0.08%

Correlation

The correlation between ASIA and DXJ is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.41

ASIA vs. DXJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ASIA	DXJ
Technology	60.2%	13.4%
Financial Services	16.2%	18.3%
Industrials	7.4%	27.4%
Communication Services	4.8%	2.3%
Consumer Cyclical	3.6%	15.5%
Energy	2.5%	1.7%
Healthcare	2.5%	6.8%
Real Estate	1.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	1.1%	4.7%
Basic Materials	1.1%	8.5%
Utilities	-	0.1%

Return for Risk

ASIA vs. DXJ — Risk / Return Rank

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

ASIA

ASIA Risk / Return Rank: 62
ASIA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
ASIA Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
ASIA Omega Ratio Rank: 63
ASIA Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
ASIA Martin Ratio Rank: 65

DXJ

DXJ Risk / Return Rank: 94
DXJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
DXJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
DXJ Omega Ratio Rank: 94
DXJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
DXJ Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

ASIA vs. DXJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA) and WisdomTree Japan Hedged Equity Fund (DXJ). 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.

	ASIA	DXJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.57	3.02	-1.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.02	3.93	-1.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.54	-0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.87	5.02	-2.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.13	19.10	-9.97

ASIA vs. DXJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ASIA Sharpe Ratio is 1.57, which is lower than the DXJ Sharpe Ratio of 3.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ASIA and DXJ, 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

ASIA vs. DXJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ASIA drawdown since its inception was -23.95%, smaller than the maximum DXJ drawdown of -49.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ASIA and DXJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	ASIA	DXJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.95%	-49.63%	+25.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.47%	-10.98%	-3.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-22.19%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-22.19%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-39.14%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.52%	-2.62%	-10.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.91%	-14.27%	+9.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.55%	2.88%	+1.67%

Volatility

ASIA vs. DXJ - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA) has a higher volatility of 13.93% compared to WisdomTree Japan Hedged Equity Fund (DXJ) at 6.56%. This indicates that ASIA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DXJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ASIA	DXJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.93%	6.56%	+7.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.35%	14.47%	+9.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.59%	18.30%	+8.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.05%	19.06%	+2.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.05%	19.93%	+2.12%

ASIA vs. DXJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

ASIA has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than DXJ's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

ASIA vs. DXJ - Dividend Comparison

ASIA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.87%, less than DXJ's 0.96% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ASIA Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF	0.87%	1.05%	0.58%	0.12%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
DXJ WisdomTree Japan Hedged Equity Fund	0.96%	1.29%	3.48%	3.44%	3.02%	2.64%	2.53%	2.47%	2.92%	2.30%	1.98%	5.95%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ASIA and DXJ in my portfolio?

ASIA and DXJ have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ASIA or DXJ?

ASIA has higher volatility (13.93%) compared to DXJ (6.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ASIA dropped -23.95% vs DXJ's -49.63%.

Which ETF is better, ASIA or DXJ?

On 1-year performance, DXJ leads with 54.82% vs 41.39% for ASIA. On fees, DXJ is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, DXJ has been the lower-risk option at 6.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ASIA or DXJ?

Over the 1-year period, DXJ has performed better with a 54.82% return vs 41.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ASIA or DXJ?

DXJ is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for ASIA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ASIA or DXJ?

DXJ has the higher dividend yield at 0.96%, compared with 0.87% for ASIA.

What is the main difference between ASIA and DXJ?

ASIA is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while DXJ is Japan Equities. They also come from different issuers: Matthews and WisdomTree. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for ASIA and 0.48% for DXJ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DXJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.02 vs 1.57), 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.