MCH vs. CNYA

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

MCH (Matthews China Active ETF) and CNYA (iShares MSCI China A ETF) are both China Equities funds. MCH is actively managed, while CNYA is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MCH returned 13.58%/yr vs 10.99%/yr for CNYA. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MCH charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for CNYA.

Performance

MCH vs. CNYA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews China Active ETF (MCH) and iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MCH achieves a 5.32% return, which is significantly lower than CNYA's 9.25% return.

MCH

• 1D: 3.55%
• 1M: 5.14%
• YTD: 5.32%
• 6M: 4.53%
• 1Y: 30.67%
• 3Y*: 13.58%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CNYA

• 1D: 2.38%
• 1M: 1.83%
• YTD: 9.25%
• 6M: 13.58%
• 1Y: 39.08%
• 3Y*: 10.99%
• 5Y*: -0.82%
• 10Y*: —

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

MCH vs. CNYA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
MCH Matthews China Active ETF	5.32%	30.20%	17.32%	-19.91%	-3.12%
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF	9.25%	26.48%	10.78%	-13.76%	-11.87%

Correlation

The correlation between MCH and CNYA is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 15, 2022	0.80

The correlation between MCH and CNYA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

MCH vs. CNYA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MCH	CNYA
Financial Services	25.5%	17.0%
Consumer Cyclical	16.2%	5.7%
Technology	15.0%	30.0%
Communication Services	13.2%	0.6%
Industrials	12.4%	18.3%
Basic Materials	9.5%	10.6%
Healthcare	5.5%	3.8%
Real Estate	2.7%	0.7%
Energy	1.0%	3.2%
Consumer Defensive	0.6%	6.7%
Utilities	-	3.2%

Return for Risk

MCH vs. CNYA — Risk / Return Rank

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

MCH

MCH Risk / Return Rank: 41
MCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
MCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
MCH Omega Ratio Rank: 41
MCH Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
MCH Martin Ratio Rank: 36

CNYA

CNYA Risk / Return Rank: 73
CNYA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
CNYA Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
CNYA Omega Ratio Rank: 67
CNYA Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
CNYA Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

MCH vs. CNYA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews China Active ETF (MCH) and iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA). 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.

	MCH	CNYA	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.53	2.27	-0.74
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.17	3.10	-0.93
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.40	-0.14
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.08	5.18	-3.10
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.62	15.37	-9.75
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MCH vs. CNYA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCH Sharpe Ratio is 1.53, which is lower than the CNYA Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCH and CNYA, 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

	MCH	CNYA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.53	2.27	-0.74
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.03	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.20	0.28	-0.08

Drawdowns

MCH vs. CNYA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCH drawdown since its inception was -40.53%, smaller than the maximum CNYA drawdown of -49.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCH and CNYA.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCH	CNYA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.53%	-49.49%	+8.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.05%	-7.59%	-7.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.57%	-33.35%	+2.78%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-44.70%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.16%	-13.45%	+11.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.52%	-20.69%	+2.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.57%	2.56%	+3.01%

Volatility

MCH vs. CNYA - Volatility Comparison

Matthews China Active ETF (MCH) and iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) have volatilities of 6.60% and 6.44%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MCH	CNYA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.60%	6.44%	+0.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.42%	12.32%	+2.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.14%	17.32%	+2.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.54%	23.81%	+5.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.54%	23.56%	+5.98%

MCH vs. CNYA - Expense Ratio Comparison

MCH has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than CNYA's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

MCH vs. CNYA - Dividend Comparison

MCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.67%, less than CNYA's 1.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF	1.75%	1.92%	2.51%	4.23%	2.69%	1.11%	1.06%	1.21%	3.92%	0.97%	1.38%
MCH Matthews China Active ETF	1.67%	1.76%	1.31%	1.62%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MCH and CNYA in my portfolio?

MCH and CNYA have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MCH or CNYA?

MCH has higher volatility (6.60%) compared to CNYA (6.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCH dropped -40.53% vs CNYA's -49.49%.

Which ETF is better, MCH or CNYA?

On 3-year performance, MCH leads with 13.58% vs 10.99% for CNYA. On fees, CNYA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, CNYA has been the lower-risk option at 6.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MCH or CNYA?

Over the 3-year period, MCH has performed better with a 13.58% return vs 10.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MCH or CNYA?

CNYA is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for MCH.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MCH or CNYA?

CNYA has the higher dividend yield at 1.75%, compared with 1.67% for MCH.

What is the main difference between MCH and CNYA?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for MCH and 0.60% for CNYA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CNYA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.27 vs 1.53), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.