M9SV.L vs. CEBG.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

M9SV.L (Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF) and CEBG.L (VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A) are both China Equities funds - M9SV.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY while CEBG.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, M9SV.L returned 6.60%/yr vs -0.04%/yr for CEBG.L. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. M9SV.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for CEBG.L.

Performance

M9SV.L vs. CEBG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF (M9SV.L) and VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A (CEBG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, M9SV.L achieves a -1.93% return, which is significantly higher than CEBG.L's -3.84% return.

M9SV.L

• 1D: -0.83%
• 1M: -1.77%
• YTD: -1.93%
• 6M: -1.72%
• 1Y: 7.63%
• 3Y*: 6.60%
• 5Y*: 4.90%
• 10Y*: —

CEBG.L

• 1D: -0.71%
• 1M: -2.19%
• YTD: -3.84%
• 6M: -5.52%
• 1Y: 9.77%
• 3Y*: -0.04%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
M9SV.L Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF	-1.93%	0.90%	30.31%	0.87%	-6.40%	0.67%
CEBG.L VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A	-3.84%	15.45%	1.26%	-14.25%	-19.48%	6.97%

Correlation

The correlation between M9SV.L and CEBG.L is 0.51, 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	0.51
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 30, 2021	0.51

The correlation between M9SV.L and CEBG.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.45 to 0.51 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

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

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

M9SV.L

M9SV.L Risk / Return Rank: 20
M9SV.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
M9SV.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
M9SV.L Omega Ratio Rank: 18
M9SV.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
M9SV.L Martin Ratio Rank: 21

CEBG.L

CEBG.L Risk / Return Rank: 18
CEBG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
CEBG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
CEBG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 19
CEBG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
CEBG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 17

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF (M9SV.L) and VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A (CEBG.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.

	M9SV.L	CEBG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.62	0.62	+0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.97	0.93	+0.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.11	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.87	0.73	+0.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.39	1.65	+0.73
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current M9SV.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.62, which is comparable to the CEBG.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of M9SV.L and CEBG.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	M9SV.L	CEBG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.62	0.62	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.25	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.30	-0.16	+0.46

Drawdowns

M9SV.L vs. CEBG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum M9SV.L drawdown since its inception was -21.64%, smaller than the maximum CEBG.L drawdown of -46.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for M9SV.L and CEBG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	M9SV.L	CEBG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.64%	-46.41%	+24.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.71%	-13.28%	+4.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.64%	-30.10%	+8.46%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.64%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.94%	-24.24%	+12.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.84%	-24.43%	+16.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.19%	5.89%	-2.70%

Volatility

M9SV.L vs. CEBG.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF (M9SV.L) is 2.56%, while VanEck New China ESG UCITS ETF A (CEBG.L) has a volatility of 4.18%. This indicates that M9SV.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CEBG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	M9SV.L	CEBG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.56%	4.18%	-1.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.77%	10.61%	-2.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.18%	15.81%	-3.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.98%	24.29%	-4.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.48%	24.29%	-3.81%

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

M9SV.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than CEBG.L's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

M9SV.L vs. CEBG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither M9SV.L nor CEBG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both M9SV.L and CEBG.L in my portfolio?

M9SV.L and CEBG.L have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, M9SV.L or CEBG.L?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, M9SV.L or CEBG.L?

M9SV.L is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CEBG.L.

What is the main difference between M9SV.L and CEBG.L?

M9SV.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while CEBG.L tracks MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: China Post Global and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for M9SV.L and 0.60% for CEBG.L.