FCA vs. MCHS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FCA (First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund) and MCHS (Matthews China Discovery Active ETF) are both China Equities funds. FCA is passively managed, while MCHS is actively managed. Over the past year, FCA returned 28.89% vs 81.12% for MCHS. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FCA charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for MCHS.

Performance

FCA vs. MCHS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund (FCA) 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, FCA achieves a 3.82% return, which is significantly lower than MCHS's 51.63% return.

FCA

• 1D: -2.20%
• 1M: -6.29%
• YTD: 3.82%
• 6M: 2.03%
• 1Y: 28.89%
• 3Y*: 19.12%
• 5Y*: 3.23%
• 10Y*: 9.27%

MCHS

• 1D: -4.50%
• 1M: 6.46%
• YTD: 51.63%
• 6M: 50.45%
• 1Y: 81.12%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FCA vs. MCHS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FCA First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund	3.82%	45.20%	16.30%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	51.63%	31.19%	6.53%

Correlation

The correlation between FCA and MCHS is 0.56, 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	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2024	0.67

The correlation between FCA and MCHS shifts across timeframes, from 0.56 (1 year) to 0.67 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FCA vs. MCHS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FCA	MCHS
Industrials	23.6%	27.8%
Financial Services	20.2%	-
Basic Materials	18.7%	8.1%
Energy	14.4%	6.3%
Technology	12.1%	49.7%
Healthcare	2.9%	2.1%
Communication Services	2.7%	1.2%
Utilities	2.7%	2.1%
Real Estate	1.2%	1.6%
Consumer Cyclical	1.0%	4.5%
Consumer Defensive	0.5%	0.8%

Return for Risk

FCA vs. MCHS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FCA

FCA Risk / Return Rank: 37
FCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
FCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
FCA Omega Ratio Rank: 35
FCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
FCA Martin Ratio Rank: 40

MCHS

MCHS Risk / Return Rank: 92
MCHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
MCHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
MCHS Omega Ratio Rank: 91
MCHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
MCHS Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

FCA vs. MCHS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund (FCA) 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.

	FCA	MCHS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.26	3.25	-1.99
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.74	3.94	-2.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.55	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.81	6.71	-4.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.93	19.57	-13.64

FCA vs. MCHS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FCA Sharpe Ratio is 1.26, which is lower than the MCHS Sharpe Ratio of 3.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FCA 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

FCA vs. MCHS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCA drawdown since its inception was -45.56%, which is greater than MCHS's maximum drawdown of -23.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCA and MCHS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FCA	MCHS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.56%	-23.75%	-21.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.07%	-12.15%	-3.92%
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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.17%	-4.50%	-10.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-21.61%	-7.53%	-14.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.88%	4.16%	+0.72%

Volatility

FCA vs. MCHS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund (FCA) is 7.95%, while Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) has a volatility of 13.48%. This indicates that FCA 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

	FCA	MCHS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.95%	13.48%	-5.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.58%	21.61%	-4.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.00%	25.11%	-2.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.72%	28.95%	-1.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.69%	28.95%	-2.26%

FCA vs. MCHS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FCA has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is lower than MCHS's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

FCA vs. MCHS - Dividend Comparison

FCA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.48%, more than MCHS's 2.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCA First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund	2.48%	2.67%	5.17%	5.70%	6.00%	4.91%	4.12%	3.73%	3.10%	2.30%	2.51%	4.13%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	2.35%	3.56%	5.48%	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 FCA and MCHS in my portfolio?

FCA and MCHS have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FCA or MCHS?

MCHS has higher volatility (13.48%) compared to FCA (7.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FCA dropped -45.56% vs MCHS's -23.75%.

Which ETF is better, FCA or MCHS?

On 1-year performance, MCHS leads with 81.12% vs 28.89% for FCA. On fees, FCA is cheaper at 0.80% per year. On volatility, FCA has been the lower-risk option at 7.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FCA or MCHS?

Over the 1-year period, MCHS has performed better with a 81.12% return vs 28.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FCA or MCHS?

FCA is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for MCHS.

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

FCA has the higher dividend yield at 2.48%, compared with 2.35% for MCHS.

What is the main difference between FCA and MCHS?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for FCA and 0.89% for MCHS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.25 vs 1.26), 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.