ECNS vs. MKOR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ECNS (iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF) and MKOR (Matthews Korea Active ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds. ECNS is passively managed, while MKOR is actively managed. Over the past year, ECNS returned 13.77% vs 187.66% for MKOR. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ECNS charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for MKOR.

Performance

ECNS vs. MKOR - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ECNS achieves a -4.50% return, which is significantly lower than MKOR's 96.84% return.

ECNS

• 1D: -2.25%
• 1M: -6.37%
• YTD: -4.50%
• 6M: -7.48%
• 1Y: 13.77%
• 3Y*: 7.43%
• 5Y*: -6.97%
• 10Y*: 1.88%

MKOR

• 1D: -0.99%
• 1M: 16.82%
• YTD: 96.84%
• 6M: 107.34%
• 1Y: 187.66%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ECNS vs. MKOR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ECNS iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF	-4.50%	36.49%	5.64%	-10.61%
MKOR Matthews Korea Active ETF	96.84%	70.33%	-15.76%	-2.16%

Correlation

The correlation between ECNS and MKOR is 0.51, 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	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 18, 2023	0.42

The correlation between ECNS and MKOR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.42 to 0.51 - a consistent structural relationship.

ECNS vs. MKOR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ECNS	MKOR
Healthcare	19.8%	1.5%
Technology	16.9%	56.1%
Industrials	16.2%	15.0%
Real Estate	8.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	8.8%	7.0%
Basic Materials	7.8%	0.8%
Communication Services	4.5%	2.1%
Financial Services	4.4%	8.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.0%	1.7%
Energy	3.4%	0.6%
Utilities	2.6%	0.6%

Return for Risk

ECNS vs. MKOR — Risk / Return Rank

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

ECNS

ECNS Risk / Return Rank: 19
ECNS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
ECNS Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
ECNS Omega Ratio Rank: 20
ECNS Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
ECNS Martin Ratio Rank: 16

MKOR

MKOR Risk / Return Rank: 96
MKOR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
MKOR Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
MKOR Omega Ratio Rank: 94
MKOR Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
MKOR Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

ECNS vs. MKOR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF (ECNS) and Matthews Korea Active ETF (MKOR). 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.

	ECNS	MKOR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.66	5.08	-4.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.00	4.94	-3.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.70	-0.56
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.76	9.16	-8.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.51	35.31	-33.80
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ECNS vs. MKOR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ECNS Sharpe Ratio is 0.66, which is lower than the MKOR Sharpe Ratio of 5.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ECNS and MKOR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ECNS	MKOR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.66	5.08	-4.42
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.24	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.07	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.02	1.57	-1.55

Drawdowns

ECNS vs. MKOR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ECNS drawdown since its inception was -63.43%, which is greater than MKOR's maximum drawdown of -22.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ECNS and MKOR.

Drawdown Indicators

	ECNS	MKOR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-63.43%	-22.09%	-41.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.08%	-20.62%	+2.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-31.72%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-59.61%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-63.43%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-38.52%	-2.27%	-36.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.39%	-6.22%	-23.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.14%	5.34%	+3.80%

Volatility

ECNS vs. MKOR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF (ECNS) is 5.64%, while Matthews Korea Active ETF (MKOR) has a volatility of 17.87%. This indicates that ECNS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MKOR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ECNS	MKOR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.64%	17.87%	-12.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.87%	33.29%	-20.42%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.92%	37.15%	-16.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.44%	27.06%	+2.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.90%	27.06%	-1.16%

ECNS vs. MKOR - Expense Ratio Comparison

ECNS has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than MKOR's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

ECNS vs. MKOR - Dividend Comparison

ECNS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.49%, more than MKOR's 1.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ECNS iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF	6.49%	6.20%	5.98%	4.89%	3.54%	4.87%	3.59%	3.23%	6.16%	3.18%	4.29%	3.58%
MKOR Matthews Korea Active ETF	1.33%	2.62%	5.28%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ECNS and MKOR in my portfolio?

ECNS and MKOR have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ECNS or MKOR?

MKOR has higher volatility (17.87%) compared to ECNS (5.64%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ECNS dropped -63.43% vs MKOR's -22.09%.

Which ETF is better, ECNS or MKOR?

On 1-year performance, MKOR leads with 187.66% vs 13.77% for ECNS. On fees, ECNS is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, ECNS has been the lower-risk option at 5.64%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ECNS or MKOR?

Over the 1-year period, MKOR has performed better with a 187.66% return vs 13.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ECNS or MKOR?

ECNS is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for MKOR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ECNS or MKOR?

ECNS has the higher dividend yield at 6.49%, compared with 1.33% for MKOR.

What is the main difference between ECNS and MKOR?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for ECNS and 0.79% for MKOR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MKOR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.08 vs 0.66), 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.