FCA vs. CNQQ
FCA (First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund) and CNQQ (Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF) are both China Equities funds - FCA tracks the NASDAQ AlphaDEX China Index while CNQQ tracks the Solactive ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech. Both are passively managed. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FCA charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for CNQQ.
Performance
FCA vs. CNQQ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with FCA having a 11.53% return and CNQQ slightly higher at 12.03%.
FCA
- 1D
- 2.01%
- 1M
- -4.08%
- YTD
- 11.53%
- 6M
- 9.85%
- 1Y
- 44.90%
- 3Y*
- 20.06%
- 5Y*
- 5.02%
- 10Y*
- 9.89%
CNQQ
- 1D
- 3.82%
- 1M
- 7.31%
- YTD
- 12.03%
- 6M
- 12.59%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FCA vs. CNQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
FCA First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund | 11.53% | 1.37% |
CNQQ Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF | 12.03% | -5.96% |
Correlation
The correlation between FCA and CNQQ is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2025 | 0.49 |
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
FCA vs. CNQQ — Risk / Return Rank
FCA
CNQQ
FCA vs. CNQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund (FCA) and Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF (CNQQ). 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.
| FCA | CNQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.02 | — | — |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.58 | — | — |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | — | — |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.19 | — | — |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.06 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| FCA | CNQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.02 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.18 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.37 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.13 | 0.33 | -0.20 |
Drawdowns
FCA vs. CNQQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FCA drawdown since its inception was -45.56%, which is greater than CNQQ's maximum drawdown of -17.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCA and CNQQ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FCA | CNQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -45.56% | -17.82% | -27.74% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.13% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -26.13% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -42.47% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -42.47% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -8.87% | -1.09% | -7.78% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -21.62% | -9.28% | -12.34% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.87% | — | — |
Volatility
FCA vs. CNQQ - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FCA | CNQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.36% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 16.57% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 22.31% | 24.50% | -2.19% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 27.59% | 24.50% | +3.09% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 26.63% | 24.50% | +2.13% |
FCA vs. CNQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
FCA has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than CNQQ's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
FCA vs. CNQQ - Dividend Comparison
FCA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.31%, more than CNQQ's 0.23% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNQQ Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF | 0.23% | 0.09% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
FCA First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund | 2.31% | 2.67% | 5.17% | 5.70% | 6.00% | 4.91% | 4.12% | 3.73% | 3.10% | 2.30% | 2.51% | 4.13% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FCA and CNQQ have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CNQQ is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CNQQ is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FCA.
FCA has the higher dividend yield at 2.31%, compared with 0.23% for CNQQ.
FCA tracks NASDAQ AlphaDEX China Index, while CNQQ tracks Solactive ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Rayliant. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for FCA and 0.75% for CNQQ.
Find the right allocation for FCA and CNQQ
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