MINV vs. ASEA

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

MINV (Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF) and ASEA (Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds. MINV is actively managed, while ASEA is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MINV returned 26.44%/yr vs 15.87%/yr for ASEA. Their 0.50 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. MINV charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for ASEA.

Performance

MINV vs. ASEA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF (MINV) and Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF (ASEA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MINV achieves a 35.22% return, which is significantly higher than ASEA's 17.89% return.

MINV

• 1D: 0.64%
• 1M: -11.07%
• 6M: 26.62%
• YTD: 35.22%
• 1Y: 51.79%
• 3Y*: 26.44%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.09%

ASEA

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: 7.20%
• 6M: 10.70%
• YTD: 17.89%
• 1Y: 33.20%
• 3Y*: 15.87%
• 5Y*: 12.90%
• 10Y*: 7.69%
• ALL TIME*: 5.38%

*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)
ASEA Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF	$373.34K	$548.14K	$590.36K
MINV Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF	$487.81K	$407.85K	$777.41K

MINV vs. ASEA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
MINV Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF	35.22%	30.85%	17.32%	-2.66%	-2.87%
ASEA Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF	17.89%	19.80%	9.82%	4.88%	13.35%

Correlation

The correlation between MINV and ASEA is 0.44, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.44
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2022	0.50

The correlation between MINV and ASEA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.44 to 0.50 - a consistent structural relationship.

MINV vs. ASEA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MINV	ASEA
Technology	38.0%	-
Industrials	15.3%	15.6%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	0.7%
Communication Services	8.5%	8.0%
Healthcare	5.2%	2.2%
Real Estate	1.7%	2.8%
Energy	1.5%	3.2%
Financial Services	1.3%	60.3%
Basic Materials	0.4%	1.5%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.1%
Utilities	-	4.3%

Return for Risk

MINV vs. ASEA — Risk / Return Rank

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

MINV

MINV Risk / Return Rank: 64
MINV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
MINV Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
MINV Omega Ratio Rank: 67
MINV Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
MINV Martin Ratio Rank: 62

ASEA

ASEA Risk / Return Rank: 88
ASEA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
ASEA Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
ASEA Omega Ratio Rank: 89
ASEA Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
ASEA Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

MINV vs. ASEA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF (MINV) and Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF (ASEA). 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.

	MINV	ASEA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.66	2.33	-0.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.16	3.30	-1.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.41	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.31	4.03	-1.71
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.87	10.75	-2.87

MINV vs. ASEA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MINV Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is comparable to the ASEA Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MINV and ASEA, 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

MINV vs. ASEA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MINV drawdown since its inception was -23.49%, smaller than the maximum ASEA drawdown of -44.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MINV and ASEA.

Drawdown Indicators

	MINV	ASEA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.49%	-44.16%	+20.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.49%	-8.28%	-14.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.49%	-22.20%	-0.29%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-22.20%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-44.16%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.65%	-0.33%	-19.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.19%	-10.56%	+2.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.60%	3.10%	+3.50%

Volatility

MINV vs. ASEA - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF (MINV) has a higher volatility of 10.36% compared to Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF (ASEA) at 3.18%. This indicates that MINV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ASEA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MINV	ASEA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.36%	3.18%	+7.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.03%	11.34%	+16.69%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.39%	14.37%	+17.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.20%	14.71%	+10.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.20%	17.49%	+7.71%

MINV vs. ASEA - Expense Ratio Comparison

MINV has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than ASEA's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

MINV vs. ASEA - Dividend Comparison

MINV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.12%, less than ASEA's 3.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ASEA Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF	3.67%	3.95%	3.61%	3.76%	2.23%	4.19%	2.27%	2.51%	3.08%	1.59%	2.78%	3.64%
MINV Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF	1.12%	1.51%	0.25%	1.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MINV and ASEA in my portfolio?

MINV and ASEA have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MINV or ASEA?

MINV has higher volatility (10.36%) compared to ASEA (3.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MINV dropped -23.49% vs ASEA's -44.16%.

Which ETF is better, MINV or ASEA?

On 3-year performance, MINV leads with 26.44% vs 15.87% for ASEA. On fees, ASEA is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, ASEA has been the lower-risk option at 3.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MINV or ASEA?

Over the 3-year period, MINV has performed better with a 26.44% return vs 15.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MINV or ASEA?

ASEA is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for MINV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MINV or ASEA?

ASEA has the higher dividend yield at 3.67%, compared with 1.12% for MINV.

What is the main difference between MINV and ASEA?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for MINV and 0.65% for ASEA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ASEA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.33 vs 1.66), 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.