MCHS vs. CNXT

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

MCHS (Matthews China Discovery Active ETF) and CNXT (VanEck ChiNext Innovators ETF) are both China Equities funds. MCHS is actively managed, while CNXT is passively managed. Over the past year, MCHS returned 36.95% vs 56.49% for CNXT. Their 0.73 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. MCHS charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for CNXT.

Performance

MCHS vs. CNXT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) and VanEck ChiNext Innovators ETF (CNXT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MCHS achieves a 23.90% return, which is significantly higher than CNXT's 9.28% return.

MCHS

• 1D: 1.71%
• 1M: -14.97%
• 6M: 11.94%
• YTD: 23.90%
• 1Y: 36.95%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 24.01%

CNXT

• 1D: 0.53%
• 1M: -15.61%
• 6M: 3.55%
• YTD: 9.28%
• 1Y: 56.49%
• 3Y*: 18.90%
• 5Y*: -0.07%
• 10Y*: 5.01%
• ALL TIME*: 6.44%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CNXT VanEck ChiNext Innovators ETF	$3.43M	$5.58M	$7.74M
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	$339.44K	$914.40K	$775.38K

MCHS vs. CNXT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	23.90%	31.19%	6.53%
CNXT VanEck ChiNext Innovators ETF	9.28%	59.31%	23.13%

Correlation

The correlation between MCHS and CNXT is 0.72, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2024	0.73

The correlation between MCHS and CNXT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

MCHS vs. CNXT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MCHS	CNXT
Technology	49.5%	53.5%
Industrials	29.1%	27.0%
Basic Materials	8.7%	4.5%
Energy	5.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	4.3%	0.7%
Healthcare	2.1%	5.0%
Utilities	2.1%	-
Communication Services	1.2%	0.9%
Real Estate	1.2%	-
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	1.8%
Financial Services	-	4.1%

Return for Risk

MCHS vs. CNXT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

MCHS

MCHS Risk / Return Rank: 46
MCHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
MCHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
MCHS Omega Ratio Rank: 50
MCHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
MCHS Martin Ratio Rank: 46

CNXT

CNXT Risk / Return Rank: 67
CNXT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
CNXT Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
CNXT Omega Ratio Rank: 63
CNXT Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
CNXT Martin Ratio Rank: 71

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

MCHS vs. CNXT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) and VanEck ChiNext Innovators ETF (CNXT). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	MCHS	CNXT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.18	1.54	-0.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.65	2.14	-0.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.27	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.43	2.34	-0.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.25	8.69	-3.43

MCHS vs. CNXT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCHS Sharpe Ratio is 1.18, which is comparable to the CNXT Sharpe Ratio of 1.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCHS and CNXT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

MCHS vs. CNXT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCHS drawdown since its inception was -24.83%, smaller than the maximum CNXT drawdown of -68.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCHS and CNXT.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCHS	CNXT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.83%	-68.98%	+44.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.83%	-24.23%	-0.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-48.60%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-61.21%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-63.30%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.54%	-23.36%	-0.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.79%	-42.50%	+34.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.72%	6.51%	+0.21%

Volatility

MCHS vs. CNXT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) is 15.69%, while VanEck ChiNext Innovators ETF (CNXT) has a volatility of 17.27%. This indicates that MCHS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNXT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MCHS	CNXT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.69%	17.27%	-1.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.18%	28.27%	-1.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	29.98%	36.85%	-6.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.25%	36.09%	-5.84%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.25%	32.23%	-1.98%

MCHS vs. CNXT - Expense Ratio Comparison

MCHS has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than CNXT's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

MCHS vs. CNXT - Dividend Comparison

MCHS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.88%, more than CNXT's 0.16% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CNXT VanEck ChiNext Innovators ETF	0.16%	0.18%	0.15%	0.00%	0.00%	9.22%	0.01%	0.45%	0.00%	0.19%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	2.88%	3.56%	5.48%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MCHS and CNXT in my portfolio?

MCHS and CNXT have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MCHS or CNXT?

CNXT has higher volatility (17.27%) compared to MCHS (15.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCHS dropped -24.83% vs CNXT's -68.98%.

Which ETF is better, MCHS or CNXT?

On 1-year performance, CNXT leads with 56.49% vs 36.95% for MCHS. On fees, CNXT is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, MCHS has been the lower-risk option at 15.69%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MCHS or CNXT?

Over the 1-year period, CNXT has performed better with a 56.49% return vs 36.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MCHS or CNXT?

CNXT is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for MCHS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MCHS or CNXT?

MCHS has the higher dividend yield at 2.88%, compared with 0.16% for CNXT.

What is the main difference between MCHS and CNXT?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for MCHS and 0.65% for CNXT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CNXT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.54 vs 1.18), 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.