PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CNYA.L vs. RQFI.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CNYA.L vs. RQFI.L - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CNYA.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, CNYA.L achieves a 4.12% return, which is significantly lower than RQFI.L's 7.40% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with CNYA.L having a 5.34% annualized return and RQFI.L not far behind at 5.12%.


CNYA.L

1D
-2.16%
1M
-4.94%
6M
0.97%
YTD
4.12%
1Y
25.16%
3Y*
9.63%
5Y*
-1.29%
10Y*
5.34%

RQFI.L

1D
0.53%
1M
-1.60%
6M
5.16%
YTD
7.40%
1Y
29.27%
3Y*
11.08%
5Y*
-0.42%
10Y*
5.12%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CNYA.L
iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
4.12%26.26%11.19%-14.20%-26.19%3.18%42.31%34.76%-26.13%30.21%
RQFI.L
Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D
7.40%27.41%13.32%-13.73%-27.09%-1.36%37.63%34.94%-27.94%32.17%

Correlation

The correlation between CNYA.L and RQFI.L is 0.92, 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

0.92

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.93

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.93

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.92

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 8, 2015

0.91

The correlation between CNYA.L and RQFI.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.93 - 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

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

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

CNYA.L
CNYA.L Risk / Return Rank: 5353
Overall Rank
CNYA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4444
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNYA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4444
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNYA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4343
Omega Ratio Rank
CNYA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNYA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5959
Martin Ratio Rank

RQFI.L
RQFI.L Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
RQFI.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6161
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RQFI.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
RQFI.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5858
Omega Ratio Rank
RQFI.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
RQFI.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7272
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CNYA.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.

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.


CNYA.LRQFI.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.39

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.44

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.29

-0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.13

3.92

-0.78

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.30

11.02

-2.71

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

The current CNYA.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.29, which is comparable to the RQFI.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNYA.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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

CNYA.L vs. RQFI.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNYA.L drawdown since its inception was -52.23%, roughly equal to the maximum RQFI.L drawdown of -50.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNYA.L and RQFI.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CNYA.LRQFI.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-52.23%

-50.90%

-1.33%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.00%

-7.44%

-0.56%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-27.99%

-27.19%

-0.80%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-44.56%

-44.09%

-0.47%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-49.31%

-50.90%

+1.59%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-17.02%

-16.24%

-0.78%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-32.14%

-31.14%

-1.00%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.02%

2.65%

+0.37%

Volatility

CNYA.L vs. RQFI.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CNYA.L) has a higher volatility of 8.85% compared to Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.L) at 8.07%. This indicates that CNYA.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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CNYA.LRQFI.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.85%

8.07%

+0.78%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.06%

13.01%

+2.05%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.35%

17.35%

+2.00%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.90%

22.23%

+0.67%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.89%

22.47%

+0.42%

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

CNYA.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than RQFI.L's 0.65% expense ratio.


Dividends

CNYA.L vs. RQFI.L - Dividend Comparison

CNYA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RQFI.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.48%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CNYA.L
iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
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
1.48%1.77%1.46%1.99%1.88%0.93%1.26%0.76%2.23%1.92%1.69%0.37%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.92, CNYA.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.

On fees, CNYA.L is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CNYA.L is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for RQFI.L.

CNYA.L tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index (Net), while RQFI.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for CNYA.L and 0.65% for RQFI.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CNYA.L and RQFI.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