PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CNXT vs. ECNS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CNXT vs. ECNS

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

CNXT (VanEck ChiNext Innovators ETF) and ECNS (iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF) are both China Equities funds - CNXT tracks the ChiNext Index while ECNS tracks the MSCI China Small Cap Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CNXT returned 5.01%/yr vs 1.20%/yr for ECNS. Their 0.61 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CNXT charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for ECNS.

Performance

CNXT vs. ECNS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck ChiNext Innovators ETF (CNXT) and iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF (ECNS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNXT achieves a 9.28% return, which is significantly higher than ECNS's -10.59% return. Over the past 10 years, CNXT has outperformed ECNS with an annualized return of 5.01%, while ECNS has yielded a comparatively lower 1.20% annualized return.

CNXT

1D
0.53%
1M
-15.61%
6M
3.55%
YTD
9.28%
1Y
56.49%
3Y*
18.90%
5Y*
-0.07%
10Y*
5.01%
ALL TIME*
6.44%

ECNS

1D
0.56%
1M
1.76%
6M
-16.80%
YTD
-10.59%
1Y
-10.39%
3Y*
3.18%
5Y*
-6.56%
10Y*
1.20%
ALL TIME*
0.23%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

CNXT

VanEck ChiNext Innovators ETF
$3.43M$5.58M$7.74M

ECNS

iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF
$190.49K$201.78K$417.63K

CNXT vs. ECNS - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CNXT
VanEck ChiNext Innovators ETF		9.28%59.31%12.42%-21.47%-35.58%8.78%63.30%42.66%-39.48%20.19%
ECNS
iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF		-10.59%36.49%5.64%-23.05%-24.58%2.11%25.42%7.84%-18.27%27.55%

Correlation

The correlation between CNXT and ECNS is 0.54, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.54

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.65

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.62

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.63

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 24, 2014

0.61

The correlation between CNXT and ECNS shifts across timeframes, from 0.54 (1 year) to 0.65 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CNXT vs. ECNS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CNXT
ECNS

Technology

53.5%
10.7%

Industrials

27.0%
20.1%

Healthcare

5.0%
21.2%

Basic Materials

4.5%
9.2%

Financial Services

4.1%
4.4%

Consumer Defensive

1.8%
5.3%

Communication Services

0.9%
8.7%

Consumer Cyclical

0.7%
8.4%

Energy

-

1.8%

Real Estate

-

8.0%

Utilities

-

2.3%

Technology

CNXT
53.5%
ECNS
10.7%

Industrials

CNXT
27.0%
ECNS
20.1%

Healthcare

CNXT
5.0%
ECNS
21.2%

Basic Materials

CNXT
4.5%
ECNS
9.2%

Financial Services

CNXT
4.1%
ECNS
4.4%

Consumer Defensive

CNXT
1.8%
ECNS
5.3%

Communication Services

CNXT
0.9%
ECNS
8.7%

Consumer Cyclical

CNXT
0.7%
ECNS
8.4%

Energy

CNXT

-

ECNS
1.8%

Real Estate

CNXT

-

ECNS
8.0%

Utilities

CNXT

-

ECNS
2.3%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

VanEck ChiNext Innovators ETF

iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF

Often compared with CNXT:
CNXT vs. KSTRCNXT vs. CXSECNXT vs. FXICNXT vs. VOOCNXT vs. CWEBCNXT vs. YINNCNXT vs. ASHR
Often compared with ECNS:
ECNS vs. ASHSECNS vs. MCHIECNS vs. DFAEECNS vs. CQQQECNS vs. FLCHECNS vs. EWTECNS vs. SCHF

Return for Risk

CNXT vs. ECNS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
CNXT
CNXT Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
CNXT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNXT Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNXT Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
CNXT Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNXT Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
Martin Ratio Rank
ECNS
ECNS Risk / Return Rank: 55
Overall Rank
ECNS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ECNS Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
Sortino Ratio Rank
ECNS Omega Ratio Rank: 44
Omega Ratio Rank
ECNS Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
Calmar Ratio Rank
ECNS Martin Ratio Rank: 55
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CNXT vs. ECNS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck ChiNext Innovators ETF (CNXT) and iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF (ECNS). 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.

CNXTECNSDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.54
-0.58

+2.12

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.14
-0.67

+2.80

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

0.92

+0.35

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.34

-0.47

+2.81

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.69

-0.93

+9.62

CNXT vs. ECNS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNXT Sharpe Ratio is 1.54, which is higher than the ECNS Sharpe Ratio of -0.58. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNXT and ECNS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

CNXT vs. ECNS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNXT drawdown since its inception was -68.98%, which is greater than ECNS's maximum drawdown of -63.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNXT and ECNS.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CNXTECNSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-68.98%

-63.43%

-5.55%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-24.23%

-25.73%

+1.50%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-48.60%

-29.29%

-19.31%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-61.21%

-57.31%

-3.90%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-63.30%

-63.43%

+0.13%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-23.36%

-42.44%

+19.08%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-42.50%

-29.51%

-12.99%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.51%

12.93%

-6.42%

Volatility

CNXT vs. ECNS - Volatility Comparison

VanEck ChiNext Innovators ETF (CNXT) has a higher volatility of 17.27% compared to iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF (ECNS) at 6.39%. This indicates that CNXT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ECNS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CNXTECNSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

17.27%

6.39%

+10.88%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

28.27%

14.32%

+13.95%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

36.85%

20.97%

+15.88%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

36.09%

29.09%

+7.00%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

32.23%

25.82%

+6.41%

CNXT vs. ECNS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNXT has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than ECNS's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNXT vs. ECNS - Dividend Comparison

CNXT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.16%, less than ECNS's 6.58% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CNXT
VanEck ChiNext Innovators ETF		0.16%0.18%0.15%0.00%0.00%9.22%0.01%0.45%0.00%0.19%0.00%0.00%
ECNS
iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF		6.58%6.20%5.98%4.89%3.54%4.87%3.59%3.23%6.16%3.18%4.29%3.58%

Frequently Asked Questions

CNXT and ECNS have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CNXT has higher volatility (17.27%) compared to ECNS (6.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CNXT dropped -68.98% vs ECNS's -63.43%.

On 10-year performance, CNXT leads with 5.01% vs 1.20% for ECNS. On fees, ECNS is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, ECNS has been the lower-risk option at 6.39%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, CNXT has performed better with a 5.01% return vs 1.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ECNS is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for CNXT.

ECNS has the higher dividend yield at 6.58%, compared with 0.16% for CNXT.

CNXT tracks ChiNext Index, while ECNS tracks MSCI China Small Cap Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for CNXT and 0.59% for ECNS.

CNXT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.54 vs -0.58), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CNXT and ECNS

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