PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
MCSMX vs. XIC.TO
Performance
Return for Risk
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility

MCSMX vs. XIC.TO

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) and iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF (XIC.TO).

MCSMX is managed by Matthews. It was launched on May 30, 2011. XIC.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Morningstar Canada GR CAD. It was launched on Feb 16, 2001.

Performance

MCSMX vs. XIC.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) and iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF (XIC.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading graphics...

MCSMX vs. XIC.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
MCSMX
Matthews China Small Companies Fund		10.66%28.85%2.82%-17.50%-31.25%6.71%82.73%35.41%-17.65%53.71%
XIC.TO
iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF		2.56%37.82%11.89%14.28%-12.12%24.33%7.73%28.89%-15.81%16.52%
Different Trading Currencies

MCSMX is traded in USD, while XIC.TO is traded in CAD. To make them comparable, the XIC.TO values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MCSMX achieves a 10.66% return, which is significantly higher than XIC.TO's 2.56% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with MCSMX having a 11.23% annualized return and XIC.TO not far ahead at 11.69%.

MCSMX

1D
-0.63%
1M
-10.72%
YTD
10.66%
6M
6.47%
1Y
31.98%
3Y*
6.45%
5Y*
-2.56%
10Y*
11.23%

XIC.TO

1D
2.66%
1M
-6.14%
YTD
2.56%
6M
10.45%
1Y
39.24%
3Y*
19.94%
5Y*
12.11%
10Y*
11.69%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

Matthews China Small Companies Fund

iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF

Often compared with MCSMX:
MCSMX vs. KWEBMCSMX vs. MJFOXMCSMX vs. CXSEMCSMX vs. GOPIXMCSMX vs. FCHKXMCSMX vs. OBCHXMCSMX vs. ICHKX
Often compared with XIC.TO:
XIC.TO vs. XIU.TOXIC.TO vs. VDY.TOXIC.TO vs. ZCN.TOXIC.TO vs. VCE.TOXIC.TO vs. XEF.TOXIC.TO vs. VEQT.TOXIC.TO vs. VO

MCSMX vs. XIC.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

MCSMX has a 1.41% expense ratio, which is higher than XIC.TO's 0.06% expense ratio.

MCSMX
Matthews China Small Companies Fund
XIC.TO
iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF

Return for Risk

MCSMX vs. XIC.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
MCSMX
MCSMX Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
MCSMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8181
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MCSMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
MCSMX Omega Ratio Rank: 7676
Omega Ratio Rank
MCSMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 5656
Calmar Ratio Rank
MCSMX Martin Ratio Rank: 4444
Martin Ratio Rank
XIC.TO
XIC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9494
Overall Rank
XIC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9595
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XIC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9494
Sortino Ratio Rank
XIC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9595
Omega Ratio Rank
XIC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9292
Calmar Ratio Rank
XIC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9595
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.

MCSMX vs. XIC.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) and iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF (XIC.TO). 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.

MCSMXXIC.TODifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.48

2.31

-0.83

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

1.94

2.99

-1.05

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.45

-0.16

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

1.32

3.63

-2.31

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

4.46

16.45

-11.99

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MCSMX vs. XIC.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCSMX Sharpe Ratio is 1.48, which is lower than the XIC.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCSMX and XIC.TO, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Loading graphics...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

MCSMXXIC.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.48

2.31

-0.83

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.11

0.72

-0.82

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.51

0.63

-0.12

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.34

0.55

-0.21

Correlation

The correlation between MCSMX and XIC.TO is 0.43, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

MCSMX vs. XIC.TO - Dividend Comparison

MCSMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.01%, less than XIC.TO's 2.16% yield.

TTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
MCSMX
Matthews China Small Companies Fund		2.01%2.23%1.35%2.36%1.78%26.38%16.98%1.03%2.25%5.66%4.79%8.88%
XIC.TO
iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF		2.16%2.23%2.64%2.95%3.10%2.44%3.03%3.01%3.19%2.49%2.72%3.21%

Drawdowns

MCSMX vs. XIC.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCSMX drawdown since its inception was -55.77%, which is greater than XIC.TO's maximum drawdown of -42.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCSMX and XIC.TO.

Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators

MCSMXXIC.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-55.77%

-48.21%

-7.56%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-15.69%

-10.98%

-4.71%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-53.98%

-16.24%

-37.74%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-55.77%

-37.21%

-18.56%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-24.92%

-4.95%

-19.97%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-20.31%

-7.08%

-13.23%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.63%

2.44%

+3.19%

Volatility

MCSMX vs. XIC.TO - Volatility Comparison

Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) has a higher volatility of 8.13% compared to iShares Core S&P/TSX Capped Composite Index ETF (XIC.TO) at 6.21%. This indicates that MCSMX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XIC.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading graphics...

Volatility by Period

MCSMXXIC.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.13%

6.21%

+1.92%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.70%

12.03%

+2.67%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

22.12%

17.05%

+5.07%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.01%

17.02%

+6.99%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.99%

18.65%

+3.34%