CEBG.L vs. MCHS.L

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

CEBG.L (VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A) and MCHS.L (Invesco MSCI China All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China NR USD, from VanEck and Invesco respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CEBG.L returned 0.68%/yr vs 8.38%/yr for MCHS.L. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CEBG.L charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for MCHS.L.

Performance

CEBG.L vs. MCHS.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A (CEBG.L) and Invesco MSCI China All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc (MCHS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CEBG.L is traded in GBP, while MCHS.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the MCHS.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEBG.L achieves a -5.78% return, which is significantly lower than MCHS.L's -3.16% return.

CEBG.L

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -3.54%
• YTD: -5.78%
• 6M: -6.28%
• 1Y: 6.18%
• 3Y*: 0.68%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MCHS.L

• 1D: -0.88%
• 1M: -2.01%
• YTD: -3.16%
• 6M: -2.75%
• 1Y: 11.34%
• 3Y*: 8.38%
• 5Y*: -3.52%
• 10Y*: —

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

CEBG.L vs. MCHS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CEBG.L VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A	-5.78%	15.45%	1.26%	-14.25%	-19.48%	-21.21%
MCHS.L Invesco MSCI China All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc	-3.16%	19.38%	18.84%	-17.54%	-15.03%	-0.53%

Correlation

The correlation between CEBG.L and MCHS.L is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 24, 2021	0.81

The correlation between CEBG.L and MCHS.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CEBG.L vs. MCHS.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CEBG.L

CEBG.L Risk / Return Rank: 14
CEBG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
CEBG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
CEBG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 13
CEBG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
CEBG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 13

MCHS.L

MCHS.L Risk / Return Rank: 20
MCHS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
MCHS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
MCHS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 19
MCHS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
MCHS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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.

CEBG.L vs. MCHS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A (CEBG.L) and Invesco MSCI China All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc (MCHS.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.

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.

	CEBG.L	MCHS.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.39	0.68	-0.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.64	1.04	-0.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.13	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.44	0.94	-0.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.93	2.06	-1.12

CEBG.L vs. MCHS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEBG.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.39, which is lower than the MCHS.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEBG.L and MCHS.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.

Drawdowns

CEBG.L vs. MCHS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEBG.L drawdown since its inception was -57.08%, which is greater than MCHS.L's maximum drawdown of -47.34%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEBG.L and MCHS.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEBG.L	MCHS.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-57.08%	-47.34%	-9.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.08%	-12.03%	-2.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.32%	-31.98%	+2.66%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-45.71%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-40.55%	-19.65%	-20.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-39.55%	-25.98%	-13.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.64%	5.50%	+1.14%

Volatility

CEBG.L vs. MCHS.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A (CEBG.L) is 3.61%, while Invesco MSCI China All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc (MCHS.L) has a volatility of 5.63%. This indicates that CEBG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MCHS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CEBG.L	MCHS.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.61%	5.63%	-2.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.69%	11.46%	-0.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.89%	16.52%	-0.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.10%	27.72%	-0.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.10%	3,095.70%	-3,068.60%

CEBG.L vs. MCHS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEBG.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than MCHS.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEBG.L vs. MCHS.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CEBG.L nor MCHS.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CEBG.L and MCHS.L in my portfolio?

CEBG.L and MCHS.L have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CEBG.L or MCHS.L?

On fees, MCHS.L is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CEBG.L or MCHS.L?

MCHS.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CEBG.L.

What is the main difference between CEBG.L and MCHS.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for CEBG.L and 0.35% for MCHS.L.