PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

M9SV.L vs. IDFX.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

M9SV.L (Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF) and IDFX.L (iShares China Large Cap UCITS) are both China Equities funds - M9SV.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY while IDFX.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, M9SV.L returned 4.90%/yr vs -2.04%/yr for IDFX.L. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. M9SV.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.74%/yr for IDFX.L.

Performance

M9SV.L vs. IDFX.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 iShares China Large Cap UCITS (IDFX.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, M9SV.L achieves a -1.93% return, which is significantly higher than IDFX.L's -6.96% 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*
—

IDFX.L

1D
-0.21%
1M
-1.77%
YTD
-6.96%
6M
-9.13%
1Y
1.24%
3Y*
9.28%
5Y*
-2.04%
10Y*
3.71%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
M9SV.L
Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF		-1.93%0.90%30.31%0.87%-6.40%7.53%22.73%5.67%-5.57%
IDFX.L
iShares China Large Cap UCITS		-6.96%19.20%33.33%-17.93%-11.03%-19.70%7.20%8.74%-2.64%

Correlation

The correlation between M9SV.L and IDFX.L is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.44

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

0.40

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

0.43

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

0.49

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

Sectors
M9SV.L
IDFX.L

Financial Services

24.5%
34.7%

Industrials

18.4%
3.1%

Utilities

13.9%
0.4%

Consumer Cyclical

11.9%
26.6%

Energy

7.4%
5.2%

Consumer Defensive

6.8%
0.9%

Technology

4.9%
5.4%

Healthcare

4.8%
2.3%

Communication Services

4.5%
16.2%

Basic Materials

2.4%
4.1%

Real Estate

0.5%
1.1%

Financial Services

M9SV.L
24.5%
IDFX.L
34.7%

Industrials

M9SV.L
18.4%
IDFX.L
3.1%

Utilities

M9SV.L
13.9%
IDFX.L
0.4%

Consumer Cyclical

M9SV.L
11.9%
IDFX.L
26.6%

Energy

M9SV.L
7.4%
IDFX.L
5.2%

Consumer Defensive

M9SV.L
6.8%
IDFX.L
0.9%

Technology

M9SV.L
4.9%
IDFX.L
5.4%

Healthcare

M9SV.L
4.8%
IDFX.L
2.3%

Communication Services

M9SV.L
4.5%
IDFX.L
16.2%

Basic Materials

M9SV.L
2.4%
IDFX.L
4.1%

Real Estate

M9SV.L
0.5%
IDFX.L
1.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF

iShares China Large Cap UCITS

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
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

Return for Risk

M9SV.L vs. IDFX.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: 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
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
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. IDFX.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 iShares China Large Cap UCITS (IDFX.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.LIDFX.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.62
0.07

+0.56

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.97
0.23

+0.75

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.11

1.03

+0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.87

0.08

+0.79

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.39

0.17

+2.22

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. IDFX.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current M9SV.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.62, which is higher than the IDFX.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of M9SV.L and IDFX.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

M9SV.LIDFX.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.62

0.07

+0.56

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.25

-0.07

+0.32

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.15

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.30

0.11

+0.19

Drawdowns

M9SV.L vs. IDFX.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum M9SV.L drawdown since its inception was -21.64%, smaller than the maximum IDFX.L drawdown of -60.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for M9SV.L and IDFX.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

M9SV.LIDFX.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-21.64%

-60.59%

+38.95%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.71%

-15.71%

+7.00%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.64%

-28.00%

+6.36%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.64%

-47.57%

+25.93%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-54.56%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-11.94%

-24.11%

+12.17%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.84%

-22.86%

+15.02%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.19%

7.24%

-4.05%

Volatility

M9SV.L vs. IDFX.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF (M9SV.L) is 2.56%, while iShares China Large Cap UCITS (IDFX.L) has a volatility of 7.03%. This indicates that M9SV.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IDFX.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

M9SV.LIDFX.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.56%

7.03%

-4.47%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.77%

13.43%

-5.66%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.18%

18.75%

-6.57%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.98%

28.65%

-8.67%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.48%

25.52%

-5.04%

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

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

Dividends

M9SV.L vs. IDFX.L - Dividend Comparison

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

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

M9SV.L and IDFX.L have a correlation of 0.44, 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.

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

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for M9SV.L and IDFX.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