CNEW.L vs. XCNA.L
CNEW.L (VanEck New China UCITS ETF) and XCNA.L (Xtrackers MSCI China A ESG Screened Swap UCITS ETF 1C) are both China Equities funds - CNEW.L tracks the MarketGrader New China Screened Index while XCNA.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CNEW.L returned 1.29%/yr vs 14.08%/yr for XCNA.L. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CNEW.L charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for XCNA.L.
Performance
CNEW.L vs. XCNA.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CNEW.L achieves a -6.01% return, which is significantly lower than XCNA.L's 9.69% return.
CNEW.L
- 1D
- 2.09%
- 1M
- -1.23%
- 6M
- -10.84%
- YTD
- -6.01%
- 1Y
- 1.38%
- 3Y*
- 1.29%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
XCNA.L
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- -2.02%
- 6M
- 7.23%
- YTD
- 9.69%
- 1Y
- 34.84%
- 3Y*
- 14.08%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CNEW.L vs. XCNA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNEW.L VanEck New China UCITS ETF | -6.01% | 23.92% | -0.36% | -9.27% | -11.25% |
XCNA.L Xtrackers MSCI China A ESG Screened Swap UCITS ETF 1C | 9.69% | 32.54% | 14.47% | -12.47% | 11.73% |
Correlation
The correlation between CNEW.L and XCNA.L is 0.83, 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 | 0.83 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.87 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 22, 2022 | 0.87 |
The correlation between CNEW.L and XCNA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CNEW.L vs. XCNA.L — Risk / Return Rank
CNEW.L
XCNA.L
CNEW.L vs. XCNA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck New China UCITS ETF (CNEW.L) and Xtrackers MSCI China A ESG Screened Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCNA.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.
| CNEW.L | XCNA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.79 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.37 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.03 | 1.33 | -0.30 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.08 | 4.74 | -4.66 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.18 | 13.37 | -13.19 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CNEW.L vs. XCNA.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CNEW.L drawdown since its inception was -46.53%, which is greater than XCNA.L's maximum drawdown of -32.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNEW.L and XCNA.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CNEW.L | XCNA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -46.53% | -32.05% | -14.48% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.41% | -7.34% | -9.07% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -28.03% | -27.66% | -0.37% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.46% | -5.15% | -19.31% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -26.53% | -13.98% | -12.55% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.75% | 2.61% | +5.14% |
Volatility
CNEW.L vs. XCNA.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for VanEck New China UCITS ETF (CNEW.L) is 5.71%, while Xtrackers MSCI China A ESG Screened Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCNA.L) has a volatility of 8.24%. This indicates that CNEW.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XCNA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CNEW.L | XCNA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.71% | 8.24% | -2.53% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.83% | 14.15% | -1.32% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.60% | 18.67% | -1.07% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 25.24% | 24.53% | +0.71% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.24% | 24.53% | +0.71% |
CNEW.L vs. XCNA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CNEW.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than XCNA.L's 0.29% expense ratio.
Dividends
CNEW.L vs. XCNA.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither CNEW.L nor XCNA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
CNEW.L and XCNA.L have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, XCNA.L is cheaper at 0.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XCNA.L is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CNEW.L.
CNEW.L tracks MarketGrader New China Screened Index, while XCNA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and DWS. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for CNEW.L and 0.29% for XCNA.L.
Find the right allocation for CNEW.L and XCNA.L
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer