ICGA.DE vs. 36BZ.DE
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares MSCI China UCITS ETF USD Acc (ICGA.DE) and iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (36BZ.DE).
ICGA.DE and 36BZ.DE are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. ICGA.DE is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI China. It was launched on Jun 20, 2019. 36BZ.DE is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI China A Inclusion. It was launched on Apr 8, 2015. Both ICGA.DE and 36BZ.DE are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: ICGA.DE or 36BZ.DE.
Key characteristics
| ICGA.DE | 36BZ.DE | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 23.65% | 20.44% |
| 1Y Return | 12.08% | 13.67% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | -7.44% | -6.96% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | -1.42% | 3.53% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 0.55 | 0.53 |
| Sortino Ratio | 1.03 | 1.02 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.12 | 1.14 |
| Calmar Ratio | 0.27 | 0.33 |
| Martin Ratio | 1.61 | 1.75 |
| Ulcer Index | 9.37% | 8.32% |
| Daily Std Dev | 27.62% | 27.08% |
| Max Drawdown | -55.95% | -53.30% |
| Current Drawdown | -39.69% | -25.45% |
Correlation
The correlation between ICGA.DE and 36BZ.DE is 0.77, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
ICGA.DE vs. 36BZ.DE - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, ICGA.DE achieves a 23.65% return, which is significantly higher than 36BZ.DE's 20.44% return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
ICGA.DE vs. 36BZ.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison
ICGA.DE has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is lower than 36BZ.DE's 0.40% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
ICGA.DE vs. 36BZ.DE - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China UCITS ETF USD Acc (ICGA.DE) and iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (36BZ.DE). 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.
Dividends
ICGA.DE vs. 36BZ.DE - Dividend Comparison
Neither ICGA.DE nor 36BZ.DE has paid dividends to shareholders.
Drawdowns
ICGA.DE vs. 36BZ.DE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ICGA.DE drawdown since its inception was -55.95%, roughly equal to the maximum 36BZ.DE drawdown of -53.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICGA.DE and 36BZ.DE. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
ICGA.DE vs. 36BZ.DE - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares MSCI China UCITS ETF USD Acc (ICGA.DE) is 11.02%, while iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (36BZ.DE) has a volatility of 12.02%. This indicates that ICGA.DE experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than 36BZ.DE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.