PCCE vs. MCHS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

PCCE (Polen Capital China Growth ETF) and MCHS (Matthews China Discovery Active ETF) are both China Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, PCCE returned 0.39% vs 81.12% for MCHS. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PCCE charges 1.00%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for MCHS.

Performance

PCCE vs. MCHS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Polen Capital China Growth ETF (PCCE) and Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PCCE achieves a -6.16% return, which is significantly lower than MCHS's 51.63% return.

PCCE

• 1D: -3.12%
• 1M: -5.09%
• YTD: -6.16%
• 6M: -6.94%
• 1Y: 0.39%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MCHS

• 1D: -4.50%
• 1M: 6.46%
• YTD: 51.63%
• 6M: 50.45%
• 1Y: 81.12%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PCCE vs. MCHS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PCCE Polen Capital China Growth ETF	-6.16%	23.07%	10.79%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	51.63%	31.19%	2.62%

Correlation

The correlation between PCCE and MCHS is 0.61, 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	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 15, 2024	0.72

The correlation between PCCE and MCHS shifts across timeframes, from 0.61 (1 year) to 0.72 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PCCE vs. MCHS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PCCE	MCHS
Communication Services	20.1%	1.2%
Financial Services	19.9%	-
Consumer Cyclical	17.3%	4.5%
Industrials	13.7%	27.8%
Real Estate	8.7%	1.6%
Healthcare	8.0%	2.1%
Technology	6.1%	49.7%
Consumer Defensive	4.3%	0.8%
Basic Materials	1.8%	8.1%
Energy	-	6.3%
Utilities	-	2.1%

Return for Risk

PCCE vs. MCHS — Risk / Return Rank

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

PCCE

PCCE Risk / Return Rank: 9
PCCE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
PCCE Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
PCCE Omega Ratio Rank: 9
PCCE Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
PCCE Martin Ratio Rank: 9

MCHS

MCHS Risk / Return Rank: 92
MCHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
MCHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
MCHS Omega Ratio Rank: 91
MCHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
MCHS Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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. MCHS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	PCCE	MCHS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.02	3.25	-3.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.17	3.94	-3.78
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.02	1.55	-0.53
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.02	6.71	-6.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.05	19.57	-19.52

PCCE vs. MCHS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PCCE Sharpe Ratio is 0.02, which is lower than the MCHS Sharpe Ratio of 3.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PCCE and MCHS, 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

PCCE vs. MCHS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PCCE drawdown since its inception was -26.38%, which is greater than MCHS's maximum drawdown of -23.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCCE and MCHS.

Drawdown Indicators

	PCCE	MCHS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.38%	-23.75%	-2.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.59%	-12.15%	-4.44%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.36%	-4.50%	-9.86%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.00%	-7.53%	-2.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.86%	4.16%	+3.70%

Volatility

PCCE vs. MCHS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Polen Capital China Growth ETF (PCCE) is 6.25%, while Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) has a volatility of 13.48%. This indicates that PCCE experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MCHS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PCCE	MCHS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.25%	13.48%	-7.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.98%	21.61%	-6.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.33%	25.11%	-5.78%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.14%	28.95%	-2.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.14%	28.95%	-2.81%

PCCE vs. MCHS - Expense Ratio Comparison

PCCE has a 1.00% expense ratio, which is higher than MCHS's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

PCCE vs. MCHS - Dividend Comparison

PCCE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.44%, more than MCHS's 2.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	2.35%	3.56%	5.48%
PCCE Polen Capital China Growth ETF	2.44%	2.29%	1.95%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PCCE and MCHS in my portfolio?

PCCE and MCHS have a correlation of 0.61, 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 MCHS?

MCHS has higher volatility (13.48%) compared to PCCE (6.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PCCE dropped -26.38% vs MCHS's -23.75%.

Which ETF is better, PCCE or MCHS?

On 1-year performance, MCHS leads with 81.12% vs 0.39% for PCCE. On fees, MCHS is cheaper at 0.89% per year. On volatility, PCCE has been the lower-risk option at 6.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PCCE or MCHS?

Over the 1-year period, MCHS has performed better with a 81.12% return vs 0.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PCCE or MCHS?

MCHS is cheaper with a 0.89% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for PCCE.

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

PCCE has the higher dividend yield at 2.44%, compared with 2.35% for MCHS.

What is the main difference between PCCE and MCHS?

They also come from different issuers: Polen and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 1.00% for PCCE and 0.89% for MCHS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.25 vs 0.02), 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.