RQFI.L vs. CC1U.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

RQFI.L (Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D) and CC1U.L (Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD) are both China Equities funds - RQFI.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY while CC1U.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RQFI.L returned 6.41%/yr vs 4.80%/yr for CC1U.L. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RQFI.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for CC1U.L.

Performance

RQFI.L vs. CC1U.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.L) and Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD (CC1U.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

RQFI.L is traded in GBp, while CC1U.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the CC1U.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RQFI.L achieves a 9.58% return, which is significantly higher than CC1U.L's 1.24% return. Over the past 10 years, RQFI.L has outperformed CC1U.L with an annualized return of 6.41%, while CC1U.L has yielded a comparatively lower 4.80% annualized return.

RQFI.L

• 1D: -0.73%
• 1M: 3.28%
• YTD: 9.58%
• 6M: 12.66%
• 1Y: 38.60%
• 3Y*: 9.52%
• 5Y*: -0.04%
• 10Y*: 6.41%

CC1U.L

• 1D: -1.55%
• 1M: -0.47%
• YTD: 1.24%
• 6M: 0.91%
• 1Y: 32.94%
• 3Y*: 4.11%
• 5Y*: 1.98%
• 10Y*: 4.80%

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

RQFI.L vs. CC1U.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RQFI.L Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D	9.58%	18.47%	15.28%	-18.09%	-17.88%	-1.05%	33.54%	29.68%	-23.59%	20.20%
CC1U.L Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD	1.24%	29.55%	3.30%	-15.76%	1.46%	-2.18%	-4.73%	8.11%	-8.93%	17.99%

Correlation

The correlation between RQFI.L and CC1U.L is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.73
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 29, 2014	0.67

The correlation between RQFI.L and CC1U.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.67 (all time) to 0.79 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RQFI.L vs. CC1U.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RQFI.L	CC1U.L
Technology	26.3%	29.6%
Financial Services	20.4%	1.3%
Industrials	16.6%	13.4%
Basic Materials	10.7%	13.0%
Consumer Defensive	7.4%	0.5%
Consumer Cyclical	6.7%	20.7%
Healthcare	4.9%	6.6%
Utilities	3.0%	3.4%
Energy	2.8%	-
Communication Services	0.8%	10.0%
Real Estate	0.5%	1.5%

Return for Risk

RQFI.L vs. CC1U.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

RQFI.L

RQFI.L Risk / Return Rank: 84
RQFI.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
RQFI.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
RQFI.L Omega Ratio Rank: 80
RQFI.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
RQFI.L Martin Ratio Rank: 86

CC1U.L

CC1U.L Risk / Return Rank: 37
CC1U.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
CC1U.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
CC1U.L Omega Ratio Rank: 37
CC1U.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
CC1U.L Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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.L vs. CC1U.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.L) and Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD (CC1U.L). 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.L	CC1U.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.65	1.47	+1.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.51	2.06	+1.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.26	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.91	2.02	+4.89
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.89	4.20	+13.69
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.L vs. CC1U.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RQFI.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.65, which is higher than the CC1U.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RQFI.L and CC1U.L, 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.L	CC1U.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.65	1.47	+1.17
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.00	0.08	-0.08
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.31	0.20	+0.11
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.36	0.22	+0.14

Drawdowns

RQFI.L vs. CC1U.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RQFI.L drawdown since its inception was -47.55%, roughly equal to the maximum CC1U.L drawdown of -47.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RQFI.L and CC1U.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	RQFI.L	CC1U.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-47.55%	-47.04%	-0.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.69%	-16.27%	+10.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.09%	-38.49%	+13.40%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.72%	-40.75%	-0.97%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.36%	-45.34%	-1.02%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.00%	-10.25%	-1.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.37%	-17.18%	-5.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.18%	7.83%	-5.65%

Volatility

RQFI.L vs. CC1U.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.L) is 5.18%, while Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD (CC1U.L) has a volatility of 7.13%. This indicates that RQFI.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CC1U.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RQFI.L	CC1U.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.18%	7.13%	-1.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.85%	14.76%	-4.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.88%	22.30%	-7.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.40%	25.83%	-4.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.60%	23.88%	-1.28%

RQFI.L vs. CC1U.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

RQFI.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than CC1U.L's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

RQFI.L vs. CC1U.L - Dividend Comparison

RQFI.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%, while CC1U.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CC1U.L Amundi MSCI China UCITS ETF-C USD	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.L Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D	1.44%	1.77%	1.46%	1.99%	1.88%	0.94%	1.26%	0.76%	2.23%	1.92%	1.70%	0.37%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RQFI.L and CC1U.L in my portfolio?

RQFI.L and CC1U.L have a correlation of 0.79, 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.L or CC1U.L?

On fees, CC1U.L is cheaper at 0.45% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, RQFI.L or CC1U.L?

CC1U.L is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for RQFI.L.

What is the main difference between RQFI.L and CC1U.L?

RQFI.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while CC1U.L tracks MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for RQFI.L and 0.45% for CC1U.L.