MCHS vs. FCA

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

MCHS (Matthews China Discovery Active ETF) and FCA (First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund) are both China Equities funds. MCHS is actively managed, while FCA is passively managed. Over the past year, MCHS returned 36.95% vs 11.99% for FCA. Their 0.66 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. MCHS charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for FCA.

Performance

MCHS vs. FCA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) and First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund (FCA). 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 FCA's -1.73% return.

MCHS

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

FCA

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: 2.89%
• 6M: -13.34%
• YTD: -1.73%
• 1Y: 11.99%
• 3Y*: 14.04%
• 5Y*: 3.42%
• 10Y*: 7.88%
• ALL TIME*: 2.82%

*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)
FCA First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund	$167.08K	$290.49K	$1.96M
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	$339.44K	$914.40K	$775.38K

MCHS vs. FCA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	23.90%	31.19%	6.53%
FCA First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund	-1.73%	45.20%	16.30%

Correlation

The correlation between MCHS and FCA is 0.55, 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.	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2024	0.66

The correlation between MCHS and FCA shifts across timeframes, from 0.55 (1 year) to 0.66 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MCHS vs. FCA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MCHS	FCA
Technology	49.5%	15.2%
Industrials	29.1%	22.3%
Basic Materials	8.7%	17.2%
Energy	5.2%	13.5%
Consumer Cyclical	4.3%	1.0%
Healthcare	2.1%	3.2%
Utilities	2.1%	2.4%
Communication Services	1.2%	2.7%
Real Estate	1.2%	1.0%
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	0.5%
Financial Services	-	21.0%

Return for Risk

MCHS vs. FCA — 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

FCA

FCA Risk / Return Rank: 20
FCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
FCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
FCA Omega Ratio Rank: 21
FCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
FCA Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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. FCA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) and First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund (FCA). 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	FCA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.18	0.44	+0.74
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.65	0.73	+0.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.09	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.43	0.43	+1.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.25	1.23	+4.03

MCHS vs. FCA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCHS Sharpe Ratio is 1.18, which is higher than the FCA Sharpe Ratio of 0.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCHS and FCA, 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. FCA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCHS drawdown since its inception was -24.83%, smaller than the maximum FCA drawdown of -45.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCHS and FCA.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCHS	FCA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.83%	-45.56%	+20.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.83%	-24.11%	-0.72%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.13%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-42.47%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-42.47%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.54%	-19.71%	-3.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.79%	-21.61%	+13.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.72%	8.38%	-1.66%

Volatility

MCHS vs. FCA - Volatility Comparison

Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) has a higher volatility of 15.69% compared to First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund (FCA) at 6.73%. This indicates that MCHS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FCA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MCHS	FCA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.69%	6.73%	+8.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.18%	18.02%	+9.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	29.98%	23.46%	+6.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.25%	27.77%	+2.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.25%	26.74%	+3.51%

MCHS vs. FCA - Expense Ratio Comparison

MCHS has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than FCA's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

MCHS vs. FCA - Dividend Comparison

MCHS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.88%, which matches FCA's 2.87% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FCA First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund	2.87%	2.67%	5.17%	5.70%	6.00%	4.91%	4.12%	3.73%	3.10%	2.30%	2.51%	4.13%
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%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MCHS and FCA in my portfolio?

MCHS and FCA have a correlation of 0.55, 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 FCA?

MCHS has higher volatility (15.69%) compared to FCA (6.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCHS dropped -24.83% vs FCA's -45.56%.

Which ETF is better, MCHS or FCA?

On 1-year performance, MCHS leads with 36.95% vs 11.99% for FCA. On fees, FCA is cheaper at 0.80% per year. On volatility, FCA has been the lower-risk option at 6.73%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MCHS or FCA?

Over the 1-year period, MCHS has performed better with a 36.95% return vs 11.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MCHS or FCA?

FCA is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for MCHS.

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

MCHS and FCA have nearly identical dividend yields, around 2.88%.

What is the main difference between MCHS and FCA?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for MCHS and 0.80% for FCA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.18 vs 0.44), 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.