PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
MIDD.L vs. ASHR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

MIDD.L vs. ASHR

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MIDD.L (iShares FTSE 250 UCITS ETF) and ASHR (Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - MIDD.L is a Europe Equities fund tracking the FTSE 250 Ex Investment Trust TR GBP, while ASHR is a China Equities fund tracking the CSI 300 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, MIDD.L returned 5.54%/yr vs 6.15%/yr for ASHR. At a 0.20 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MIDD.L charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for ASHR.

Performance

MIDD.L vs. ASHR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares FTSE 250 UCITS ETF (MIDD.L) and Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares Fund (ASHR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

MIDD.L is traded in GBp, while ASHR is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the ASHR values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MIDD.L achieves a 5.26% return, which is significantly lower than ASHR's 9.97% return. Over the past 10 years, MIDD.L has underperformed ASHR with an annualized return of 5.54%, while ASHR has yielded a comparatively higher 6.15% annualized return.

MIDD.L

1D
0.56%
1M
4.32%
YTD
5.26%
6M
7.17%
1Y
13.79%
3Y*
9.96%
5Y*
3.14%
10Y*
5.54%

ASHR

1D
-0.53%
1M
2.72%
YTD
9.97%
6M
11.98%
1Y
38.38%
3Y*
9.33%
5Y*
-0.28%
10Y*
6.15%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

MIDD.L vs. ASHR - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
MIDD.L
iShares FTSE 250 UCITS ETF		5.26%12.44%7.33%7.76%-17.86%16.27%-5.34%28.46%-13.44%17.34%
ASHR
Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares Fund		9.97%17.97%13.91%-16.89%-18.90%-0.64%32.29%31.31%-24.21%21.93%

Correlation

The correlation between MIDD.L and ASHR is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.28

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

0.17

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

0.14

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.19

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 7, 2013

0.20

The correlation between MIDD.L and ASHR shifts across timeframes, from 0.14 (5 years) to 0.28 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MIDD.L vs. ASHR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
MIDD.L
ASHR

Industrials

19.9%
16.7%

Financial Services

19.5%
20.4%

Consumer Cyclical

13.3%
6.7%

Real Estate

9.4%
0.5%

Technology

9.2%
26.3%

Basic Materials

6.6%
10.7%

Consumer Defensive

6.1%
7.3%

Communication Services

5.9%
0.8%

Healthcare

4.4%
4.9%

Utilities

3.0%
3.0%

Energy

2.5%
2.7%

Industrials

MIDD.L
19.9%
ASHR
16.7%

Financial Services

MIDD.L
19.5%
ASHR
20.4%

Consumer Cyclical

MIDD.L
13.3%
ASHR
6.7%

Real Estate

MIDD.L
9.4%
ASHR
0.5%

Technology

MIDD.L
9.2%
ASHR
26.3%

Basic Materials

MIDD.L
6.6%
ASHR
10.7%

Consumer Defensive

MIDD.L
6.1%
ASHR
7.3%

Communication Services

MIDD.L
5.9%
ASHR
0.8%

Healthcare

MIDD.L
4.4%
ASHR
4.9%

Utilities

MIDD.L
3.0%
ASHR
3.0%

Energy

MIDD.L
2.5%
ASHR
2.7%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares FTSE 250 UCITS ETF

Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares Fund

Often compared with MIDD.L:
MIDD.L vs. VMID.LMIDD.L vs. CSUK.LMIDD.L vs. CUKS.LMIDD.L vs. ISF.LMIDD.L vs. HMWO.LMIDD.L vs. SWDA.LMIDD.L vs. FTAL.L
Often compared with ASHR:
ASHR vs. MCHIASHR vs. FXIASHR vs. CNYAASHR vs. ASHSASHR vs. SPYASHR vs. GXCASHR vs. CHAU

Return for Risk

MIDD.L vs. ASHR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
MIDD.L
MIDD.L Risk / Return Rank: 3030
Overall Rank
MIDD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3131
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MIDD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3232
Sortino Ratio Rank
MIDD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3131
Omega Ratio Rank
MIDD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2525
Calmar Ratio Rank
MIDD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2929
Martin Ratio Rank
ASHR
ASHR Risk / Return Rank: 7474
Overall Rank
ASHR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6868
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ASHR Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
ASHR Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
ASHR Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
ASHR Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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.

MIDD.L vs. ASHR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares FTSE 250 UCITS ETF (MIDD.L) and Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares Fund (ASHR). 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.

MIDD.LASHRDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.10
2.40

-1.30

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.67
3.31

-1.64

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.21

1.42

-0.21

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.19

6.05

-4.86

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.19

16.31

-12.12

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

MIDD.L vs. ASHR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MIDD.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.10, which is lower than the ASHR Sharpe Ratio of 2.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MIDD.L and ASHR, 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

MIDD.LASHRDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.10

2.40

-1.30

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.21

-0.01

+0.22

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.33

0.26

+0.07

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.48

0.28

+0.20

Drawdowns

MIDD.L vs. ASHR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MIDD.L drawdown since its inception was -51.66%, which is greater than ASHR's maximum drawdown of -46.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MIDD.L and ASHR.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

MIDD.LASHRDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-51.66%

-46.82%

-4.84%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.54%

-6.37%

-5.17%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.92%

-31.24%

+14.32%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.93%

-41.65%

+11.72%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-41.60%

-46.69%

+5.09%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.77%

-13.29%

+12.52%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.76%

-22.79%

+14.03%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.28%

2.36%

+0.92%

Volatility

MIDD.L vs. ASHR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares FTSE 250 UCITS ETF (MIDD.L) is 3.92%, while Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares Fund (ASHR) has a volatility of 5.29%. This indicates that MIDD.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ASHR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

MIDD.LASHRDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.92%

5.29%

-1.37%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.27%

10.86%

-0.59%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.49%

16.08%

-3.59%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.27%

22.69%

-7.42%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.54%

23.64%

-7.10%

MIDD.L vs. ASHR - Expense Ratio Comparison

MIDD.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than ASHR's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

MIDD.L vs. ASHR - Dividend Comparison

MIDD.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.43%, more than ASHR's 2.11% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ASHR
Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares Fund		2.11%2.31%1.13%2.48%1.13%0.88%0.81%0.98%1.32%0.84%0.73%30.13%
MIDD.L
iShares FTSE 250 UCITS ETF		3.43%3.56%3.05%3.17%2.76%2.01%1.51%2.72%3.07%2.80%2.67%2.80%

Frequently Asked Questions

MIDD.L and ASHR have a correlation of 0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, MIDD.L is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

MIDD.L is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for ASHR.

MIDD.L is categorized as Europe Equities, while ASHR is China Equities. MIDD.L tracks FTSE 250 Ex Investment Trust TR GBP, while ASHR tracks CSI 300 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and DWS. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for MIDD.L and 0.65% for ASHR.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for MIDD.L and ASHR

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