GXC vs. ISVBF
Compare and contrast key facts about SPDR S&P China ETF (GXC) and iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF).
GXC and ISVBF are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. GXC is a passively managed fund by State Street that tracks the performance of the S&P China BMI Index. It was launched on Mar 19, 2007. ISVBF is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI China A Inclusion Index. It was launched on Apr 8, 2015. Both GXC and ISVBF are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
GXC vs. ISVBF - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
GXC vs. ISVBF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GXC SPDR S&P China ETF | -4.21% | 30.84% | 14.60% | -9.93% | -22.12% | -19.50% |
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | -6.48% | 30.64% | 18.96% | -9.28% | -23.01% | -22.12% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GXC achieves a -4.21% return, which is significantly higher than ISVBF's -6.48% return.
GXC
- 1D
- -0.42%
- 1M
- -5.54%
- YTD
- -4.21%
- 6M
- -10.98%
- 1Y
- 10.37%
- 3Y*
- 7.19%
- 5Y*
- -4.63%
- 10Y*
- 5.15%
ISVBF
- 1D
- 0.60%
- 1M
- -4.98%
- YTD
- -6.48%
- 6M
- -13.49%
- 1Y
- 6.38%
- 3Y*
- 8.03%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
GXC vs. ISVBF - Expense Ratio Comparison
GXC has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than ISVBF's 0.40% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
GXC vs. ISVBF — Risk / Return Rank
GXC
ISVBF
GXC vs. ISVBF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P China ETF (GXC) and iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF). 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.
| GXC | ISVBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.46 | 0.20 | +0.26 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 0.76 | 0.49 | +0.28 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.11 | 1.07 | +0.04 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.64 | 0.33 | +0.31 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.01 | 0.98 | +1.03 |
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 graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| GXC | ISVBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.46 | 0.20 | +0.26 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.16 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.20 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.16 | -0.16 | +0.32 |
Correlation
The correlation between GXC and ISVBF is 0.32, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Dividends
GXC vs. ISVBF - Dividend Comparison
GXC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.51%, while ISVBF has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GXC SPDR S&P China ETF | 2.51% | 2.40% | 2.81% | 3.70% | 2.67% | 1.35% | 1.04% | 1.60% | 2.03% | 1.84% | 2.05% | 2.85% |
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
GXC vs. ISVBF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GXC drawdown since its inception was -71.96%, which is greater than ISVBF's maximum drawdown of -53.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GXC and ISVBF.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| GXC | ISVBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -71.96% | -53.78% | -18.18% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.11% | -19.18% | +3.07% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -54.30% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -60.23% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -32.31% | -24.20% | -8.11% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -28.81% | -33.12% | +4.31% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.26% | 6.49% | -1.23% |
Volatility
GXC vs. ISVBF - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for SPDR S&P China ETF (GXC) is 6.07%, while iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) has a volatility of 17.49%. This indicates that GXC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ISVBF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| GXC | ISVBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.07% | 17.49% | -11.42% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.70% | 24.96% | -11.26% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 22.60% | 31.35% | -8.75% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 28.92% | 30.03% | -1.11% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 26.08% | 30.03% | -3.95% |