GXC vs. ISVBF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GXC (SPDR S&P China ETF) and ISVBF (iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds - GXC tracks the S&P China BMI Index while ISVBF tracks the MSCI China A Inclusion Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GXC returned -4.55%/yr vs -5.00%/yr for ISVBF. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GXC charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for ISVBF.

Performance

GXC vs. ISVBF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P China ETF (GXC) and iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GXC achieves a -3.93% return, which is significantly higher than ISVBF's -4.52% return.

GXC

• 1D: -2.27%
• 1M: -2.82%
• YTD: -3.93%
• 6M: -5.13%
• 1Y: 12.26%
• 3Y*: 10.65%
• 5Y*: -4.55%
• 10Y*: 5.25%

ISVBF

• 1D: 3.77%
• 1M: -0.15%
• YTD: -4.52%
• 6M: -6.41%
• 1Y: 9.14%
• 3Y*: 10.70%
• 5Y*: -5.00%
• 10Y*: —

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

GXC vs. ISVBF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GXC SPDR S&P China ETF	-3.93%	30.84%	14.60%	-9.93%	-22.12%	-19.50%
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF	-4.52%	30.64%	18.96%	-9.28%	-23.01%	-22.12%

Correlation

The correlation between GXC and ISVBF 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	0.48
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.33
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 6, 2021	0.33

Over the past year, GXC and ISVBF have become more correlated (0.65) than their long-term average of 0.33, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

GXC vs. ISVBF — Risk / Return Rank

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

GXC

GXC Risk / Return Rank: 19
GXC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
GXC Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
GXC Omega Ratio Rank: 19
GXC Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
GXC Martin Ratio Rank: 18

ISVBF

ISVBF Risk / Return Rank: 14
ISVBF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
ISVBF Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
ISVBF Omega Ratio Rank: 14
ISVBF Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
ISVBF Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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.

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 ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.65	0.30	+0.35
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.03	0.62	+0.41
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.08	+0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.90	0.48	+0.42
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2.02	1.12	+0.89
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GXC vs. ISVBF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GXC Sharpe Ratio is 0.65, which is higher than the ISVBF Sharpe Ratio of 0.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GXC and ISVBF, 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

	GXC	ISVBF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.65	0.30	+0.35
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.16	-0.17	+0.01
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	-0.14	+0.30

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	GXC	ISVBF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-71.96%	-53.78%	-18.18%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.73%	-19.18%	+5.45%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.54%	-23.77%	-1.77%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-53.99%	-53.22%	-0.77%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-60.23%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-32.10%	-22.61%	-9.49%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.82%	-32.77%	+3.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.09%	8.15%	-2.06%

Volatility

GXC vs. ISVBF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR S&P China ETF (GXC) is 6.64%, while iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) has a volatility of 10.63%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	GXC	ISVBF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.64%	10.63%	-3.99%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.59%	26.50%	-12.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.88%	30.50%	-11.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.97%	30.18%	-1.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.09%	30.20%	-4.11%

GXC vs. ISVBF - Expense Ratio Comparison

GXC has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than ISVBF's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

GXC vs. ISVBF - Dividend Comparison

GXC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.50%, while ISVBF has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GXC SPDR S&P China ETF	2.50%	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%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GXC and ISVBF in my portfolio?

GXC and ISVBF 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.

Which is riskier, GXC or ISVBF?

ISVBF has higher volatility (10.63%) compared to GXC (6.64%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GXC dropped -71.96% vs ISVBF's -53.78%.

Which ETF is better, GXC or ISVBF?

On 5-year performance, GXC leads with -4.55% vs -5.00% for ISVBF. On fees, ISVBF is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, GXC has been the lower-risk option at 6.64%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GXC or ISVBF?

Over the 5-year period, GXC has performed better with a -4.55% return vs -5.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GXC or ISVBF?

ISVBF is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for GXC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GXC or ISVBF?

GXC has the higher dividend yield at 2.50%, compared with 0.00% for ISVBF.

What is the main difference between GXC and ISVBF?

GXC tracks S&P China BMI Index, while ISVBF tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for GXC and 0.40% for ISVBF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GXC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.65 vs 0.30), 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.