RQFI.DE vs. CNAA.DE

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

RQFI.DE (Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D) and CNAA.DE (Amundi MSCI China A UCITS ETF Acc) are both China Equities funds - RQFI.DE tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY while CNAA.DE tracks the MSCI China A. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RQFI.DE returned -0.26%/yr vs -0.21%/yr for CNAA.DE. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. RQFI.DE charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for CNAA.DE.

Performance

RQFI.DE vs. CNAA.DE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a €10,000 investment in Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.DE) and Amundi MSCI China A UCITS ETF Acc (CNAA.DE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with RQFI.DE having a 10.42% return and CNAA.DE slightly lower at 9.91%.

RQFI.DE

• 1D: -0.67%
• 1M: 1.50%
• YTD: 10.42%
• 6M: 12.27%
• 1Y: 34.46%
• 3Y*: 9.38%
• 5Y*: -0.26%
• 10Y*: 5.34%

CNAA.DE

• 1D: -0.79%
• 1M: 0.35%
• YTD: 9.91%
• 6M: 11.19%
• 1Y: 33.60%
• 3Y*: 8.43%
• 5Y*: -0.21%
• 10Y*: —

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

RQFI.DE vs. CNAA.DE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
RQFI.DE Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D	10.42%	11.14%	22.25%	-16.68%	-21.96%	7.77%	24.32%	11.92%
CNAA.DE Amundi MSCI China A UCITS ETF Acc	9.91%	10.09%	19.81%	-17.19%	-20.96%	13.50%	28.18%	12.50%

Correlation

The correlation between RQFI.DE and CNAA.DE is 0.89, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.89
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 30, 2019	0.96

The correlation between RQFI.DE and CNAA.DE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RQFI.DE vs. CNAA.DE — Risk / Return Rank

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

RQFI.DE

RQFI.DE Risk / Return Rank: 75
RQFI.DE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
RQFI.DE Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
RQFI.DE Omega Ratio Rank: 65
RQFI.DE Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
RQFI.DE Martin Ratio Rank: 80

CNAA.DE

CNAA.DE Risk / Return Rank: 69
CNAA.DE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
CNAA.DE Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
CNAA.DE Omega Ratio Rank: 61
CNAA.DE Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
CNAA.DE Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

RQFI.DE vs. CNAA.DE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.DE) and Amundi MSCI China A UCITS ETF Acc (CNAA.DE). 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.

	RQFI.DE	CNAA.DE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.23	2.04	+0.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.09	2.90	+0.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.37	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.91	5.08	+0.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.55	13.52	+2.04
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RQFI.DE vs. CNAA.DE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RQFI.DE Sharpe Ratio is 2.23, which is comparable to the CNAA.DE Sharpe Ratio of 2.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RQFI.DE and CNAA.DE, 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

	RQFI.DE	CNAA.DE	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.23	2.04	+0.19
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.01	-0.01	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.24	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.31	0.29	+0.02

Drawdowns

RQFI.DE vs. CNAA.DE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RQFI.DE drawdown since its inception was -51.79%, which is greater than CNAA.DE's maximum drawdown of -43.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RQFI.DE and CNAA.DE.

Drawdown Indicators

	RQFI.DE	CNAA.DE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.79%	-43.90%	-7.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.82%	-6.65%	+0.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.48%	-27.84%	+0.36%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.44%	-41.85%	+0.41%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.24%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.80%	-11.33%	-0.47%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-27.06%	-19.23%	-7.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.21%	2.50%	-0.29%

Volatility

RQFI.DE vs. CNAA.DE - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.DE) and Amundi MSCI China A UCITS ETF Acc (CNAA.DE) have volatilities of 5.89% and 6.13%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RQFI.DE	CNAA.DE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.89%	6.13%	-0.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.42%	11.38%	-0.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.40%	16.52%	-1.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.96%	21.44%	-0.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.82%	22.51%	-0.69%

RQFI.DE vs. CNAA.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison

RQFI.DE has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than CNAA.DE's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

RQFI.DE vs. CNAA.DE - Dividend Comparison

RQFI.DE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%, while CNAA.DE has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CNAA.DE Amundi MSCI China A UCITS ETF Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RQFI.DE Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D	1.44%	1.84%	1.40%	1.98%	1.97%	0.90%	1.32%	0.75%	2.31%	2.00%	1.81%	0.37%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RQFI.DE and CNAA.DE in my portfolio?

RQFI.DE and CNAA.DE have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, RQFI.DE or CNAA.DE?

On fees, CNAA.DE is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, RQFI.DE or CNAA.DE?

CNAA.DE is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for RQFI.DE.

What is the main difference between RQFI.DE and CNAA.DE?

RQFI.DE tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while CNAA.DE tracks MSCI China A. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for RQFI.DE and 0.35% for CNAA.DE.