ICHN.AS vs. R1GR.AS

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

ICHN.AS (iShares MSCI China UCITS ETF) and R1GR.AS (iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ICHN.AS is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China NR USD, while R1GR.AS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth UCITS 30/18 Capped index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, ICHN.AS returned 4.44% vs 25.33% for R1GR.AS. At a 0.29 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ICHN.AS charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for R1GR.AS.

Performance

ICHN.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI China UCITS ETF (ICHN.AS) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (R1GR.AS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ICHN.AS achieves a -7.22% return, which is significantly lower than R1GR.AS's 6.45% return.

ICHN.AS

• 1D: -0.49%
• 1M: -2.77%
• YTD: -7.22%
• 6M: -8.68%
• 1Y: 4.44%
• 3Y*: 10.63%
• 5Y*: -5.22%
• 10Y*: —

R1GR.AS

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: 5.23%
• YTD: 6.45%
• 6M: 6.63%
• 1Y: 25.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ICHN.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ICHN.AS iShares MSCI China UCITS ETF	-7.22%	31.69%	18.56%	-15.68%
R1GR.AS iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF	6.45%	17.57%	35.07%	6.55%

Correlation

The correlation between ICHN.AS and R1GR.AS is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.39
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2023	0.29

The correlation between ICHN.AS and R1GR.AS shifts across timeframes, from 0.29 (all time) to 0.39 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

ICHN.AS vs. R1GR.AS — Risk / Return Rank

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

ICHN.AS

ICHN.AS Risk / Return Rank: 12
ICHN.AS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
ICHN.AS Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
ICHN.AS Omega Ratio Rank: 12
ICHN.AS Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
ICHN.AS Martin Ratio Rank: 12

R1GR.AS

R1GR.AS Risk / Return Rank: 42
R1GR.AS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
R1GR.AS Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
R1GR.AS Omega Ratio Rank: 46
R1GR.AS Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
R1GR.AS Martin Ratio Rank: 35

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.

ICHN.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China UCITS ETF (ICHN.AS) and iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (R1GR.AS). 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.

	ICHN.AS	R1GR.AS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.22	1.63	-1.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.46	2.36	-1.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.05	1.29	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.26	1.59	-1.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.54	5.20	-4.66
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ICHN.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICHN.AS Sharpe Ratio is 0.22, which is lower than the R1GR.AS Sharpe Ratio of 1.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICHN.AS and R1GR.AS, 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

	ICHN.AS	R1GR.AS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.22	1.63	-1.41
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.18	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.05	1.32	-1.27

Drawdowns

ICHN.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICHN.AS drawdown since its inception was -62.67%, which is greater than R1GR.AS's maximum drawdown of -23.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICHN.AS and R1GR.AS.

Drawdown Indicators

	ICHN.AS	R1GR.AS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.67%	-23.09%	-39.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.99%	-15.71%	-1.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.22%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-56.46%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-35.29%	-1.53%	-33.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.80%	-3.34%	-30.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.21%	4.84%	+3.37%

Volatility

ICHN.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI China UCITS ETF (ICHN.AS) has a higher volatility of 7.61% compared to iShares Russell 1000 Growth UCITS ETF (R1GR.AS) at 4.13%. This indicates that ICHN.AS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than R1GR.AS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ICHN.AS	R1GR.AS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.61%	4.13%	+3.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.71%	11.33%	+3.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.03%	15.36%	+4.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.04%	18.90%	+10.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.75%	18.90%	+9.85%

ICHN.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICHN.AS has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than R1GR.AS's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

ICHN.AS vs. R1GR.AS - Dividend Comparison

Neither ICHN.AS nor R1GR.AS has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ICHN.AS and R1GR.AS in my portfolio?

ICHN.AS and R1GR.AS have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ICHN.AS or R1GR.AS?

On fees, R1GR.AS is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, ICHN.AS or R1GR.AS?

R1GR.AS is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for ICHN.AS.

What is the main difference between ICHN.AS and R1GR.AS?

ICHN.AS is categorized as China Equities, while R1GR.AS is Large Cap Growth Equities. ICHN.AS tracks MSCI China NR USD, while R1GR.AS tracks Russell 1000 Growth UCITS 30/18 Capped index. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for ICHN.AS and 0.18% for R1GR.AS.