ECNS vs. ASHR
ECNS (iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF) and ASHR (Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF) are both China Equities funds - ECNS tracks the MSCI China Small Cap Index while ASHR tracks the CSI 300 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ECNS returned 0.73%/yr vs 4.74%/yr for ASHR. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ECNS charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for ASHR.
Performance
ECNS vs. ASHR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ECNS achieves a -13.41% return, which is significantly lower than ASHR's 5.02% return. Over the past 10 years, ECNS has underperformed ASHR with an annualized return of 0.73%, while ASHR has yielded a comparatively higher 4.74% annualized return.
ECNS
- 1D
- -2.61%
- 1M
- -7.53%
- 6M
- -18.85%
- YTD
- -13.41%
- 1Y
- -8.94%
- 3Y*
- 3.56%
- 5Y*
- -8.73%
- 10Y*
- 0.73%
ASHR
- 1D
- -2.49%
- 1M
- -2.29%
- 6M
- 0.47%
- YTD
- 5.02%
- 1Y
- 25.58%
- 3Y*
- 10.02%
- 5Y*
- -1.22%
- 10Y*
- 4.74%
ECNS vs. ASHR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ECNS iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF | -13.41% | 36.49% | 5.64% | -23.05% | -24.58% | 2.11% | 25.42% | 7.84% | -18.27% | 27.55% |
ASHR Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF | 5.02% | 27.02% | 11.95% | -12.52% | -27.52% | -1.57% | 36.29% | 36.50% | -28.45% | 33.47% |
Correlation
The correlation between ECNS and ASHR is 0.65, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.65 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.71 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.72 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.70 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2013 | 0.66 |
The correlation between ECNS and ASHR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.
ECNS vs. ASHR - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
ECNS
ASHR
Industrials
Healthcare
Technology
Basic Materials
Real Estate
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
Financial Services
Consumer Defensive
Energy
Utilities
Industrials
ECNS
ASHR
Healthcare
ECNS
ASHR
Technology
ECNS
ASHR
Basic Materials
ECNS
ASHR
Real Estate
ECNS
ASHR
Consumer Cyclical
ECNS
ASHR
Communication Services
ECNS
ASHR
Financial Services
ECNS
ASHR
Consumer Defensive
ECNS
ASHR
Energy
ECNS
ASHR
Utilities
ECNS
ASHR
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
ECNS vs. ASHR — Risk / Return Rank
ECNS
ASHR
ECNS vs. ASHR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF (ECNS) and Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF (ASHR). 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.
| ECNS | ASHR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.79 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.40 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.94 | 1.24 | -0.30 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.35 | 3.34 | -3.69 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.77 | 9.00 | -9.77 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ECNS vs. ASHR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ECNS drawdown since its inception was -63.43%, which is greater than ASHR's maximum drawdown of -51.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ECNS and ASHR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ECNS | ASHR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -63.43% | -51.30% | -12.13% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -25.73% | -7.69% | -18.04% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -31.72% | -33.12% | +1.40% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -58.38% | -44.10% | -14.28% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -63.43% | -51.30% | -12.13% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -44.26% | -19.53% | -24.73% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -29.46% | -29.07% | -0.39% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.64% | 2.85% | +8.79% |
Volatility
ECNS vs. ASHR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF (ECNS) is 6.17%, while Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF (ASHR) has a volatility of 8.70%. This indicates that ECNS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ASHR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ECNS | ASHR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.17% | 8.70% | -2.53% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.93% | 14.34% | -0.41% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.99% | 18.94% | +2.05% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 29.47% | 24.11% | +5.36% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.80% | 24.15% | +1.65% |
ECNS vs. ASHR - Expense Ratio Comparison
ECNS has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than ASHR's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
ECNS vs. ASHR - Dividend Comparison
ECNS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.79%, more than ASHR's 2.20% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ASHR Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF | 2.20% | 2.31% | 1.13% | 2.48% | 1.13% | 0.88% | 0.81% | 0.98% | 1.32% | 0.84% | 0.73% | 30.13% |
ECNS iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF | 6.79% | 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
ECNS and ASHR have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ASHR has higher volatility (8.70%) compared to ECNS (6.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ECNS dropped -63.43% vs ASHR's -51.30%.
On 10-year performance, ASHR leads with 4.74% vs 0.73% for ECNS. On fees, ECNS is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, ECNS has been the lower-risk option at 6.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, ASHR has performed better with a 4.74% return vs 0.73%. 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 ASHR.
ECNS has the higher dividend yield at 6.79%, compared with 2.20% for ASHR.
ECNS tracks MSCI China Small Cap Index, while ASHR tracks CSI 300 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and DWS. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for ECNS and 0.65% for ASHR.
ASHR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.36 vs -0.43), 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.
Find the right allocation for ECNS and ASHR
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