ISVBF vs. CNQQ
ISVBF (iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF) and CNQQ (Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF) are both China Equities funds - ISVBF tracks the MSCI China A Inclusion Index while CNQQ tracks the Solactive ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech. Both are passively managed. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ISVBF charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for CNQQ.
Performance
ISVBF vs. CNQQ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ISVBF achieves a -8.72% return, which is significantly lower than CNQQ's 12.03% return.
ISVBF
- 1D
- -2.42%
- 1M
- -4.76%
- YTD
- -8.72%
- 6M
- -10.61%
- 1Y
- 2.82%
- 3Y*
- 9.05%
- 5Y*
- -5.62%
- 10Y*
- —
CNQQ
- 1D
- 0.38%
- 1M
- 7.11%
- YTD
- 12.03%
- 6M
- 12.44%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ISVBF vs. CNQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | -8.72% | -4.92% |
CNQQ Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF | 12.03% | -5.96% |
Correlation
The correlation between ISVBF and CNQQ is 0.58, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2025 | 0.58 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
ISVBF vs. CNQQ — Risk / Return Rank
ISVBF
CNQQ
ISVBF vs. CNQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) and Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF (CNQQ). 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.
| ISVBF | CNQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.04 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.15 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.34 | — | — |
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 charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ISVBF | CNQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.09 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.19 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.17 | 0.33 | -0.49 |
Drawdowns
ISVBF vs. CNQQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ISVBF drawdown since its inception was -53.78%, which is greater than CNQQ's maximum drawdown of -17.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ISVBF and CNQQ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ISVBF | CNQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -53.78% | -17.82% | -35.96% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -19.18% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.77% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -53.22% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -26.01% | -1.09% | -24.92% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -32.76% | -9.19% | -23.57% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.28% | — | — |
Volatility
ISVBF vs. CNQQ - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ISVBF | CNQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.06% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 26.63% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 30.67% | 24.37% | +6.30% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 30.21% | 24.37% | +5.84% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 30.21% | 24.37% | +5.84% |
ISVBF vs. CNQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
ISVBF has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than CNQQ's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
ISVBF vs. CNQQ - Dividend Comparison
ISVBF has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CNQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.23%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
CNQQ Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF | 0.23% | 0.09% |
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ISVBF and CNQQ have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ISVBF is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ISVBF is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CNQQ.
CNQQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.23%, compared with 0.00% for ISVBF.
ISVBF tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index, while CNQQ tracks Solactive ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Rayliant. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for ISVBF and 0.75% for CNQQ.
Find the right allocation for ISVBF and CNQQ
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