CNYA vs. MCHS

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

CNYA (iShares MSCI China A ETF) and MCHS (Matthews China Discovery Active ETF) are both China Equities funds. CNYA is passively managed, while MCHS is actively managed. Over the past year, CNYA returned 20.44% vs 36.57% for MCHS. Their 0.73 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CNYA charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for MCHS.

Performance

CNYA vs. MCHS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) and Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNYA achieves a 1.42% return, which is significantly lower than MCHS's 23.55% return.

CNYA

• 1D: -0.48%
• 1M: -4.50%
• 6M: 1.02%
• YTD: 1.42%
• 1Y: 20.44%
• 3Y*: 7.23%
• 5Y*: -1.55%
• 10Y*: 5.24%
• ALL TIME*: 5.58%

MCHS

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: -15.21%
• 6M: 12.64%
• YTD: 23.55%
• 1Y: 36.57%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 23.79%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF	$1.46M	$2.43M	$4.11M
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	$333.02K	$567.27K	$784.19K

CNYA vs. MCHS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF	1.42%	26.48%	16.94%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	23.55%	31.19%	6.53%

Correlation

The correlation between CNYA and MCHS is 0.71, 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.	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2024	0.73

The correlation between CNYA and MCHS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

CNYA vs. MCHS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CNYA	MCHS
Technology	37.3%	49.5%
Financial Services	16.8%	-
Industrials	14.2%	29.1%
Basic Materials	10.7%	8.7%
Consumer Defensive	5.8%	0.8%
Consumer Cyclical	4.3%	4.3%
Healthcare	3.8%	2.1%
Utilities	2.9%	2.1%
Energy	2.6%	5.2%
Communication Services	1.1%	1.2%
Real Estate	0.5%	1.2%

Return for Risk

CNYA vs. MCHS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

CNYA

CNYA Risk / Return Rank: 44
CNYA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
CNYA Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
CNYA Omega Ratio Rank: 39
CNYA Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
CNYA Martin Ratio Rank: 48

MCHS

MCHS Risk / Return Rank: 45
MCHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
MCHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
MCHS Omega Ratio Rank: 49
MCHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
MCHS Martin Ratio Rank: 45

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.

CNYA vs. MCHS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) and Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS). 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	MCHS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.02	1.23	-0.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.49	1.70	-0.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.24	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.98	1.48	+0.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.71	5.33	+0.39

CNYA vs. MCHS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNYA Sharpe Ratio is 1.02, which is comparable to the MCHS Sharpe Ratio of 1.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNYA and MCHS, 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

CNYA vs. MCHS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNYA drawdown since its inception was -49.49%, which is greater than MCHS's maximum drawdown of -24.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNYA and MCHS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNYA	MCHS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-49.49%	-24.83%	-24.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.37%	-24.83%	+14.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-33.35%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.65%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-49.49%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.65%	-23.75%	+4.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.61%	-7.82%	-12.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.58%	6.89%	-3.31%

Volatility

CNYA vs. MCHS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) is 8.01%, while Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) has a volatility of 13.50%. This indicates that CNYA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MCHS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNYA	MCHS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.01%	13.50%	-5.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.84%	27.17%	-11.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.22%	30.01%	-9.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.88%	30.23%	-6.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.63%	30.23%	-6.60%

CNYA vs. MCHS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CNYA has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than MCHS's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNYA vs. MCHS - Dividend Comparison

CNYA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.85%, less than MCHS's 2.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF	1.85%	1.92%	2.51%	4.23%	2.69%	1.11%	1.06%	1.21%	3.92%	0.97%	1.38%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	2.88%	3.56%	5.48%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNYA and MCHS in my portfolio?

CNYA and MCHS have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CNYA or MCHS?

MCHS has higher volatility (13.50%) compared to CNYA (8.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CNYA dropped -49.49% vs MCHS's -24.83%.

Which ETF is better, CNYA or MCHS?

On 1-year performance, MCHS leads with 36.57% vs 20.44% for CNYA. On fees, CNYA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, CNYA has been the lower-risk option at 8.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CNYA or MCHS?

Over the 1-year period, MCHS has performed better with a 36.57% return vs 20.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNYA or MCHS?

CNYA is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for MCHS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CNYA or MCHS?

MCHS has the higher dividend yield at 2.88%, compared with 1.85% for CNYA.

What is the main difference between CNYA and MCHS?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for CNYA and 0.89% for MCHS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.23 vs 1.02), 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.