PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IDFX.L vs. M9SV.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IDFX.L vs. M9SV.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IDFX.L (iShares China Large Cap UCITS) and M9SV.L (Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds - IDFX.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD while M9SV.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IDFX.L returned -3.09%/yr vs 3.80%/yr for M9SV.L. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IDFX.L charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for M9SV.L.

Performance

IDFX.L vs. M9SV.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares China Large Cap UCITS (IDFX.L) and Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF (M9SV.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

IDFX.L is traded in USD, while M9SV.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the M9SV.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IDFX.L achieves a -7.34% return, which is significantly lower than M9SV.L's -2.17% return.

IDFX.L

1D
-0.21%
1M
-2.66%
YTD
-7.34%
6M
-8.50%
1Y
0.27%
3Y*
12.09%
5Y*
-3.09%
10Y*
2.94%

M9SV.L

1D
-0.78%
1M
-2.60%
YTD
-2.17%
6M
-0.99%
1Y
6.61%
3Y*
9.35%
5Y*
3.80%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IDFX.L vs. M9SV.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
IDFX.L
iShares China Large Cap UCITS		-7.34%28.34%31.04%-13.61%-20.49%-20.45%10.44%13.04%-4.05%
M9SV.L
Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF		-2.17%8.52%28.14%6.19%-16.41%6.55%26.49%9.91%-7.07%

Correlation

The correlation between IDFX.L and M9SV.L is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.47

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.46

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.48

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 7, 2018

0.53

The correlation between IDFX.L and M9SV.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.46 to 0.53 - a consistent structural relationship.

IDFX.L vs. M9SV.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IDFX.L
M9SV.L

Financial Services

34.7%
24.5%

Consumer Cyclical

26.6%
11.9%

Communication Services

16.2%
4.5%

Technology

5.4%
4.9%

Energy

5.2%
7.4%

Basic Materials

4.1%
2.4%

Industrials

3.1%
18.4%

Healthcare

2.3%
4.8%

Real Estate

1.1%
0.5%

Consumer Defensive

0.9%
6.8%

Utilities

0.4%
13.9%

Financial Services

IDFX.L
34.7%
M9SV.L
24.5%

Consumer Cyclical

IDFX.L
26.6%
M9SV.L
11.9%

Communication Services

IDFX.L
16.2%
M9SV.L
4.5%

Technology

IDFX.L
5.4%
M9SV.L
4.9%

Energy

IDFX.L
5.2%
M9SV.L
7.4%

Basic Materials

IDFX.L
4.1%
M9SV.L
2.4%

Industrials

IDFX.L
3.1%
M9SV.L
18.4%

Healthcare

IDFX.L
2.3%
M9SV.L
4.8%

Real Estate

IDFX.L
1.1%
M9SV.L
0.5%

Consumer Defensive

IDFX.L
0.9%
M9SV.L
6.8%

Utilities

IDFX.L
0.4%
M9SV.L
13.9%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares China Large Cap UCITS

Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF

Often compared with IDFX.L:
IDFX.L vs. FXIIDFX.L vs. HMCD.LIDFX.L vs. C500.LIDFX.L vs. CM5S.LIDFX.L vs. CNDX.LIDFX.L vs. C300.LIDFX.L vs. JRCE.L
Often compared with M9SV.L:
M9SV.L vs. CHIN.LM9SV.L vs. JRCE.LM9SV.L vs. XCX6.LM9SV.L vs. CM5S.LM9SV.L vs. GOLB.LM9SV.L vs. LCCN.LM9SV.L vs. IASH.L

Return for Risk

IDFX.L vs. M9SV.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IDFX.L
IDFX.L Risk / Return Rank: 99
Overall Rank
IDFX.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IDFX.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
Sortino Ratio Rank
IDFX.L Omega Ratio Rank: 99
Omega Ratio Rank
IDFX.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
Calmar Ratio Rank
IDFX.L Martin Ratio Rank: 99
Martin Ratio Rank
M9SV.L
M9SV.L Risk / Return Rank: 2020
Overall Rank
M9SV.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2020
Sharpe Ratio Rank
M9SV.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1919
Sortino Ratio Rank
M9SV.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1818
Omega Ratio Rank
M9SV.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
M9SV.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2121
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

IDFX.L vs. M9SV.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares China Large Cap UCITS (IDFX.L) and Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF (M9SV.L). 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.

IDFX.LM9SV.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.01
0.53

-0.52

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.16
0.82

-0.67

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.02

1.10

-0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.02

0.82

-0.81

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.04

2.56

-2.52

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IDFX.L vs. M9SV.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IDFX.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.01, which is lower than the M9SV.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IDFX.L and M9SV.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

IDFX.LM9SV.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.01

0.53

-0.52

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.10

0.18

-0.29

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.11

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.13

0.32

-0.19

Drawdowns

IDFX.L vs. M9SV.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IDFX.L drawdown since its inception was -70.30%, which is greater than M9SV.L's maximum drawdown of -30.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IDFX.L and M9SV.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IDFX.LM9SV.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-70.30%

-30.47%

-39.83%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-15.54%

-7.99%

-7.55%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-28.74%

-23.59%

-5.15%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-54.41%

-30.22%

-24.19%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-60.44%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-26.55%

-9.65%

-16.90%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-33.92%

-9.94%

-23.98%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.25%

2.58%

+4.67%

Volatility

IDFX.L vs. M9SV.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares China Large Cap UCITS (IDFX.L) has a higher volatility of 7.60% compared to Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF (M9SV.L) at 3.38%. This indicates that IDFX.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than M9SV.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IDFX.LM9SV.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.60%

3.38%

+4.22%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.86%

8.18%

+5.68%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.26%

12.40%

+6.86%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

29.88%

20.84%

+9.04%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

26.08%

21.00%

+5.08%

IDFX.L vs. M9SV.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

IDFX.L has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than M9SV.L's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

IDFX.L vs. M9SV.L - Dividend Comparison

IDFX.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.92%, while M9SV.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IDFX.L
iShares China Large Cap UCITS		1.92%1.76%2.38%2.43%2.36%1.86%2.39%2.44%3.04%2.35%2.47%2.70%
M9SV.L
Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance 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

IDFX.L and M9SV.L have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, M9SV.L is cheaper at 0.45% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

M9SV.L is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for IDFX.L.

IDFX.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while M9SV.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: iShares and China Post Global. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for IDFX.L and 0.45% for M9SV.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IDFX.L and M9SV.L

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer