MINV vs. CNYA

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

MINV (Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF) and CNYA (iShares MSCI China A ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MINV is a Asia Pacific Equities fund actively managed by Matthews, while CNYA is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Inclusion Index. MINV is actively managed, while CNYA is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MINV returned 28.60%/yr vs 10.02%/yr for CNYA. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MINV charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for CNYA.

Performance

MINV vs. CNYA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF (MINV) and iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MINV achieves a 44.25% return, which is significantly higher than CNYA's 6.24% return.

MINV

• 1D: 0.43%
• 1M: -4.89%
• 6M: 33.76%
• YTD: 44.25%
• 1Y: 64.97%
• 3Y*: 28.60%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CNYA

• 1D: 2.74%
• 1M: -0.47%
• 6M: 3.22%
• YTD: 6.24%
• 1Y: 27.03%
• 3Y*: 10.02%
• 5Y*: -1.22%
• 10Y*: 5.57%

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

MINV vs. CNYA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
MINV Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF	44.25%	30.85%	17.32%	-2.66%	-2.87%
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF	6.24%	26.48%	10.78%	-13.76%	-11.82%

Correlation

The correlation between MINV and CNYA is 0.60, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.60
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2022	0.61

The correlation between MINV and CNYA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

MINV vs. CNYA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MINV	CNYA
Technology	67.2%	31.7%
Industrials	19.2%	15.4%
Healthcare	4.6%	3.9%
Consumer Cyclical	3.7%	5.2%
Communication Services	2.3%	1.3%
Energy	1.7%	3.1%
Financial Services	1.4%	17.6%
Basic Materials	0.8%	11.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	6.8%
Real Estate	-	0.6%
Utilities	-	3.3%

Return for Risk

MINV vs. CNYA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

MINV

MINV Risk / Return Rank: 82
MINV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
MINV Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
MINV Omega Ratio Rank: 81
MINV Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
MINV Martin Ratio Rank: 84

CNYA

CNYA Risk / Return Rank: 59
CNYA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
CNYA Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
CNYA Omega Ratio Rank: 49
CNYA Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
CNYA Martin Ratio Rank: 64

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.

MINV vs. CNYA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF (MINV) and iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA). 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	CNYA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.13	1.39	+0.74
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.62	1.96	+0.66
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.25	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.46	3.49	+0.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.35	9.20	+4.16

MINV vs. CNYA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MINV Sharpe Ratio is 2.13, which is higher than the CNYA Sharpe Ratio of 1.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MINV and CNYA, 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. CNYA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MINV drawdown since its inception was -23.49%, smaller than the maximum CNYA drawdown of -49.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MINV and CNYA.

Drawdown Indicators

	MINV	CNYA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.49%	-49.49%	+26.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.65%	-7.77%	-6.88%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.82%	-33.35%	+13.53%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-44.65%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-49.49%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.28%	-15.84%	+1.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.04%	-20.62%	+12.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.88%	2.95%	+1.93%

Volatility

MINV vs. CNYA - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF (MINV) has a higher volatility of 15.48% compared to iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) at 9.00%. This indicates that MINV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CNYA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MINV	CNYA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.48%	9.00%	+6.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.72%	15.20%	+12.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.68%	19.55%	+11.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.13%	24.05%	+1.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.13%	23.60%	+1.53%

MINV vs. CNYA - Expense Ratio Comparison

MINV has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than CNYA's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

MINV vs. CNYA - Dividend Comparison

MINV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.05%, less than CNYA's 1.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF	1.77%	1.92%	2.51%	4.23%	2.69%	1.11%	1.06%	1.21%	3.92%	0.97%	1.38%
MINV Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF	1.05%	1.51%	0.25%	1.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MINV and CNYA in my portfolio?

MINV and CNYA have a correlation of 0.60, 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 CNYA?

MINV has higher volatility (15.48%) compared to CNYA (9.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MINV dropped -23.49% vs CNYA's -49.49%.

Which ETF is better, MINV or CNYA?

On 3-year performance, MINV leads with 28.60% vs 10.02% for CNYA. On fees, CNYA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, CNYA has been the lower-risk option at 9.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MINV or CNYA?

Over the 3-year period, MINV has performed better with a 28.60% return vs 10.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MINV or CNYA?

CNYA is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for MINV.

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

CNYA has the higher dividend yield at 1.77%, compared with 1.05% for MINV.

What is the main difference between MINV and CNYA?

MINV is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while CNYA is China Equities. They also come from different issuers: Matthews and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for MINV and 0.60% for CNYA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MINV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 vs 1.39), 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.