CNAA.L vs. RQFI.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CNAA.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) and RQFI.L (Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D) are both China Equities funds tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, from Amundi and Xtrackers respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CNAA.L returned 5.10%/yr vs 5.64%/yr for RQFI.L. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CNAA.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for RQFI.L.

Performance

CNAA.L vs. RQFI.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L) and Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CNAA.L is traded in USD, while RQFI.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the RQFI.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNAA.L achieves a 8.87% return, which is significantly lower than RQFI.L's 9.32% return. Over the past 10 years, CNAA.L has underperformed RQFI.L with an annualized return of 5.10%, while RQFI.L has yielded a comparatively higher 5.64% annualized return.

CNAA.L

• 1D: -0.64%
• 1M: -0.71%
• YTD: 8.87%
• 6M: 11.68%
• 1Y: 35.54%
• 3Y*: 11.42%
• 5Y*: -1.13%
• 10Y*: 5.10%

RQFI.L

• 1D: -0.68%
• 1M: 0.80%
• YTD: 9.32%
• 6M: 12.15%
• 1Y: 36.88%
• 3Y*: 12.35%
• 5Y*: -1.09%
• 10Y*: 5.64%

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

CNAA.L vs. RQFI.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CNAA.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR	8.87%	26.13%	10.92%	-14.20%	-25.98%	3.21%	42.77%	36.87%	-30.39%	22.13%
RQFI.L Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D	9.32%	27.41%	13.28%	-13.70%	-26.48%	-2.18%	37.63%	35.38%	-28.18%	32.41%

Correlation

The correlation between CNAA.L and RQFI.L is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.91
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.92
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 10, 2014	0.88

The correlation between CNAA.L and RQFI.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

CNAA.L vs. RQFI.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CNAA.L	RQFI.L
Technology	27.2%	26.3%
Financial Services	18.8%	20.4%
Industrials	15.7%	16.6%
Basic Materials	12.4%	10.7%
Consumer Defensive	7.4%	7.4%
Consumer Cyclical	5.6%	6.7%
Healthcare	4.3%	4.9%
Energy	3.4%	2.8%
Utilities	3.2%	3.0%
Communication Services	1.4%	0.8%
Real Estate	0.6%	0.5%

Return for Risk

CNAA.L vs. RQFI.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CNAA.L

CNAA.L Risk / Return Rank: 72
CNAA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
CNAA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
CNAA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
CNAA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
CNAA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 76

RQFI.L

RQFI.L Risk / Return Rank: 84
RQFI.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
RQFI.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
RQFI.L Omega Ratio Rank: 80
RQFI.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
RQFI.L Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

CNAA.L vs. RQFI.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L) and Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.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.

	CNAA.L	RQFI.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.15	2.45	-0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.00	3.34	-0.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.42	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.81	5.77	-0.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.29	16.95	-2.65
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CNAA.L vs. RQFI.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNAA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.15, which is comparable to the RQFI.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNAA.L and RQFI.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CNAA.L	RQFI.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.15	2.45	-0.30
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.05	-0.05	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.23	0.26	-0.04
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.22	0.28	-0.06

Drawdowns

CNAA.L vs. RQFI.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNAA.L drawdown since its inception was -56.07%, which is greater than RQFI.L's maximum drawdown of -50.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNAA.L and RQFI.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNAA.L	RQFI.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.07%	-50.90%	-5.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.51%	-6.59%	-0.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.67%	-27.19%	-1.48%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.55%	-45.38%	+0.83%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-49.66%	-50.90%	+1.24%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.27%	-14.75%	+0.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.05%	-28.60%	-4.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.53%	2.22%	+0.31%

Volatility

CNAA.L vs. RQFI.L - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L) has a higher volatility of 6.38% compared to Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.L) at 5.81%. This indicates that CNAA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RQFI.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNAA.L	RQFI.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.38%	5.81%	+0.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.91%	10.36%	+1.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.80%	15.54%	+1.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.47%	22.63%	-0.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.50%	23.40%	-0.90%

CNAA.L vs. RQFI.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNAA.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than RQFI.L's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNAA.L vs. RQFI.L - Dividend Comparison

CNAA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RQFI.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CNAA.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RQFI.L Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D	1.44%	1.77%	1.46%	1.99%	1.88%	0.94%	1.26%	0.76%	2.23%	1.92%	1.70%	0.37%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNAA.L and RQFI.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, CNAA.L and RQFI.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, CNAA.L or RQFI.L?

On fees, CNAA.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, CNAA.L or RQFI.L?

CNAA.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for RQFI.L.

What is the main difference between CNAA.L and RQFI.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CNAA.L and 0.65% for RQFI.L.