PCCE vs. CNYA

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

PCCE (Polen Capital China Growth ETF) and CNYA (iShares MSCI China A ETF) are both China Equities funds. PCCE is actively managed, while CNYA is passively managed. Over the past year, PCCE returned 4.95% vs 36.38% for CNYA. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PCCE charges 1.00%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for CNYA.

Performance

PCCE vs. CNYA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Polen Capital China Growth ETF (PCCE) 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, PCCE achieves a -1.49% return, which is significantly lower than CNYA's 8.91% return.

PCCE

• 1D: -0.49%
• 1M: -0.31%
• YTD: -1.49%
• 6M: -1.95%
• 1Y: 4.95%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CNYA

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 1.89%
• YTD: 8.91%
• 6M: 13.45%
• 1Y: 36.38%
• 3Y*: 11.15%
• 5Y*: -1.13%
• 10Y*: —

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

PCCE vs. CNYA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PCCE Polen Capital China Growth ETF	-1.49%	23.07%	11.85%
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF	8.91%	26.48%	7.49%

Correlation

The correlation between PCCE and CNYA is 0.71, 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	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 18, 2024	0.72

The correlation between PCCE and CNYA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

PCCE vs. CNYA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PCCE	CNYA
Communication Services	20.1%	0.6%
Financial Services	19.9%	17.0%
Consumer Cyclical	17.3%	5.7%
Industrials	13.7%	18.3%
Real Estate	8.7%	0.7%
Healthcare	8.0%	3.8%
Technology	6.1%	30.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.3%	6.7%
Basic Materials	1.8%	10.6%
Energy	-	3.2%
Utilities	-	3.2%

Return for Risk

PCCE vs. CNYA — Risk / Return Rank

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

PCCE

PCCE Risk / Return Rank: 13
PCCE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
PCCE Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
PCCE Omega Ratio Rank: 13
PCCE Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
PCCE Martin Ratio Rank: 12

CNYA

CNYA Risk / Return Rank: 71
CNYA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
CNYA Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
CNYA Omega Ratio Rank: 64
CNYA Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
CNYA Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

PCCE vs. CNYA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Polen Capital China Growth ETF (PCCE) 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.

	PCCE	CNYA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.26	2.11	-1.85
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.51	2.92	-2.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.38	-0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.30	4.81	-4.52
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.68	14.19	-13.52
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PCCE vs. CNYA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PCCE Sharpe Ratio is 0.26, which is lower than the CNYA Sharpe Ratio of 2.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PCCE 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	PCCE	CNYA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.26	2.11	-1.85
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.05	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.57	0.27	+0.29

Drawdowns

PCCE vs. CNYA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PCCE drawdown since its inception was -26.38%, smaller than the maximum CNYA drawdown of -49.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCCE and CNYA.

Drawdown Indicators

	PCCE	CNYA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.38%	-49.49%	+23.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.59%	-7.59%	-9.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-33.35%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-44.70%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.10%	-13.73%	+3.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.93%	-20.68%	+10.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.33%	2.57%	+4.76%

Volatility

PCCE vs. CNYA - Volatility Comparison

Polen Capital China Growth ETF (PCCE) has a higher volatility of 7.84% compared to iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) at 6.44%. This indicates that PCCE'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

	PCCE	CNYA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.84%	6.44%	+1.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.22%	12.23%	+1.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.92%	17.31%	+1.61%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.19%	23.80%	+2.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.19%	23.55%	+2.64%

PCCE vs. CNYA - Expense Ratio Comparison

PCCE has a 1.00% expense ratio, which is higher than CNYA's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

PCCE vs. CNYA - Dividend Comparison

PCCE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.32%, more than CNYA's 1.76% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF	1.76%	1.92%	2.51%	4.23%	2.69%	1.11%	1.06%	1.21%	3.92%	0.97%	1.38%
PCCE Polen Capital China Growth ETF	2.32%	2.29%	1.95%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PCCE and CNYA in my portfolio?

PCCE and CNYA have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PCCE or CNYA?

PCCE has higher volatility (7.84%) compared to CNYA (6.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PCCE dropped -26.38% vs CNYA's -49.49%.

Which ETF is better, PCCE or CNYA?

On 1-year performance, CNYA leads with 36.38% vs 4.95% for PCCE. On fees, CNYA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, CNYA has been the lower-risk option at 6.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PCCE or CNYA?

Over the 1-year period, CNYA has performed better with a 36.38% return vs 4.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PCCE or CNYA?

CNYA is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for PCCE.

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

PCCE has the higher dividend yield at 2.32%, compared with 1.76% for CNYA.

What is the main difference between PCCE and CNYA?

They also come from different issuers: Polen and iShares. Their fees differ too: 1.00% for PCCE and 0.60% for CNYA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CNYA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.11 vs 0.26), 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.