PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
RQFI.L vs. CEMA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

RQFI.L vs. CEMA.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026
Documentation

RQFI.L (Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D) and CEMA.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - RQFI.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while CEMA.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM Asia Index Net. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RQFI.L returned 4.84%/yr vs 9.84%/yr for CEMA.L. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RQFI.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CEMA.L.

Performance

RQFI.L vs. CEMA.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 iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

RQFI.L is traded in GBp, while CEMA.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the CEMA.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 6.78% return, which is significantly lower than CEMA.L's 21.95% return. Over the past 10 years, RQFI.L has underperformed CEMA.L with an annualized return of 4.84%, while CEMA.L has yielded a comparatively higher 9.84% annualized return.

RQFI.L

1D
-0.61%
1M
-2.49%
6M
4.42%
YTD
6.78%
1Y
27.80%
3Y*
9.85%
5Y*
-0.10%
10Y*
4.84%

CEMA.L

1D
-1.51%
1M
-7.88%
6M
16.10%
YTD
21.95%
1Y
38.53%
3Y*
20.53%
5Y*
7.81%
10Y*
9.84%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RQFI.L
Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D		6.78%18.47%15.24%-18.06%-18.37%-0.46%33.54%29.73%-23.62%20.69%
CEMA.L
iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc		21.95%24.43%14.40%1.32%-12.13%-4.43%24.47%13.03%-9.44%28.21%

Correlation

The correlation between RQFI.L and CEMA.L is 0.55, 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

0.55

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.50

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.55

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.62

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 8, 2014

0.60

The correlation between RQFI.L and CEMA.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.50 (3 years) to 0.62 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors
RQFI.L
CEMA.L

Technology

26.3%
54.6%

Financial Services

20.4%
13.4%

Industrials

16.6%
6.3%

Basic Materials

10.7%
3.1%

Consumer Defensive

7.4%
1.9%

Consumer Cyclical

6.7%
7.9%

Healthcare

4.9%
2.7%

Utilities

3.0%
1.2%

Energy

2.8%
2.2%

Communication Services

0.8%
6.0%

Real Estate

0.5%
0.6%

Technology

RQFI.L
26.3%
CEMA.L
54.6%

Financial Services

RQFI.L
20.4%
CEMA.L
13.4%

Industrials

RQFI.L
16.6%
CEMA.L
6.3%

Basic Materials

RQFI.L
10.7%
CEMA.L
3.1%

Consumer Defensive

RQFI.L
7.4%
CEMA.L
1.9%

Consumer Cyclical

RQFI.L
6.7%
CEMA.L
7.9%

Healthcare

RQFI.L
4.9%
CEMA.L
2.7%

Utilities

RQFI.L
3.0%
CEMA.L
1.2%

Energy

RQFI.L
2.8%
CEMA.L
2.2%

Communication Services

RQFI.L
0.8%
CEMA.L
6.0%

Real Estate

RQFI.L
0.5%
CEMA.L
0.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D

iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc

Often compared with RQFI.L:
RQFI.L vs. CA3S.LRQFI.L vs. CHIN.LRQFI.L vs. XCX6.LRQFI.L vs. HMCT.LRQFI.L vs. CEBG.LRQFI.L vs. CM5S.LRQFI.L vs. XCNA.L
Often compared with CEMA.L:
CEMA.L vs. ESPS.LCEMA.L vs. EIMI.LCEMA.L vs. CSPX.ASCEMA.L vs. XMTW.LCEMA.L vs. ISAC.LCEMA.L vs. CSKR.LCEMA.L vs. CPJ1.L

Return for Risk

RQFI.L vs. CEMA.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: 6666
Overall Rank
RQFI.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6161
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RQFI.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
RQFI.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5858
Omega Ratio Rank
RQFI.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
RQFI.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7272
Martin Ratio Rank
CEMA.L
CEMA.L Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6262
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7171
Calmar Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6464
Martin Ratio Rank
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. CEMA.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 iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.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.

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.

RQFI.LCEMA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.65
1.69

-0.04

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.26
2.28

-0.01

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.31

-0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.40

3.31

+0.09

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.50

9.37

+1.13

RQFI.L vs. CEMA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RQFI.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.65, which is comparable to the CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RQFI.L and CEMA.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.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

RQFI.L vs. CEMA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RQFI.L drawdown since its inception was -47.55%, which is greater than CEMA.L's maximum drawdown of -34.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RQFI.L and CEMA.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

RQFI.LCEMA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-47.55%

-34.15%

-13.40%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.13%

-11.59%

+3.46%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.09%

-18.32%

-6.77%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-41.72%

-26.97%

-14.75%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-46.36%

-34.15%

-12.21%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-14.24%

-11.42%

-2.82%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-24.67%

-11.00%

-13.67%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.64%

4.10%

-1.46%

Volatility

RQFI.L vs. CEMA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.L) is 7.94%, while iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) has a volatility of 10.26%. This indicates that RQFI.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CEMA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

RQFI.LCEMA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.94%

10.26%

-2.32%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.27%

20.57%

-8.30%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.79%

22.75%

-5.96%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.87%

19.18%

+1.69%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.72%

19.48%

+2.24%

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

RQFI.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than CEMA.L's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

RQFI.L vs. CEMA.L - Dividend Comparison

RQFI.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.48%, while CEMA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CEMA.L
iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD 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.L
Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D		1.48%1.77%1.46%1.99%1.88%0.93%1.26%0.76%2.23%1.92%1.69%0.37%

Frequently Asked Questions

RQFI.L and CEMA.L have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CEMA.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CEMA.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for RQFI.L.

RQFI.L is categorized as China Equities, while CEMA.L is Asia Pacific Equities. RQFI.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while CEMA.L tracks MSCI EM Asia Index Net. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for RQFI.L and 0.20% for CEMA.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RQFI.L and CEMA.L

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer