RQFI.L vs. CNSG.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

RQFI.L (Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D) and CNSG.L (UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis) are both China Equities funds - RQFI.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY while CNSG.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RQFI.L returned -0.04%/yr vs -5.51%/yr for CNSG.L. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RQFI.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for CNSG.L.

Performance

RQFI.L vs. CNSG.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 UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (CNSG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RQFI.L achieves a 9.58% return, which is significantly higher than CNSG.L's -4.82% 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%

CNSG.L

• 1D: -1.91%
• 1M: -0.52%
• YTD: -4.82%
• 6M: -6.30%
• 1Y: 3.32%
• 3Y*: 4.77%
• 5Y*: -5.51%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
RQFI.L Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D	9.58%	18.47%	15.28%	-18.09%	-17.88%	-1.05%	33.54%	3.53%
CNSG.L UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis	-4.82%	15.02%	19.26%	-19.78%	-13.48%	-18.60%	25.87%	2.75%

Correlation

The correlation between RQFI.L and CNSG.L is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.69
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 9, 2019	0.70

The correlation between RQFI.L and CNSG.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RQFI.L vs. CNSG.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

CNSG.L

CNSG.L Risk / Return Rank: 13
CNSG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
CNSG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
CNSG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 13
CNSG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
CNSG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 13

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. CNSG.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 UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (CNSG.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	CNSG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.65	0.29	+2.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.51	0.50	+3.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.06	+0.41
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.91	0.34	+6.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.89	0.73	+17.16
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. CNSG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RQFI.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.65, which is higher than the CNSG.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RQFI.L and CNSG.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	CNSG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.65	0.29	+2.36
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.00	-0.21	+0.20
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.31	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.36	-0.03	+0.39

Drawdowns

RQFI.L vs. CNSG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RQFI.L drawdown since its inception was -47.55%, smaller than the maximum CNSG.L drawdown of -57.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RQFI.L and CNSG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	RQFI.L	CNSG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-47.55%	-57.38%	+9.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.69%	-14.08%	+8.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.09%	-27.72%	+2.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.72%	-51.82%	+10.10%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.36%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.00%	-36.10%	+24.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.37%	-30.15%	+7.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.18%	6.56%	-4.38%

Volatility

RQFI.L vs. CNSG.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.L) is 5.18%, while UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (CNSG.L) has a volatility of 6.07%. This indicates that RQFI.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNSG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RQFI.L	CNSG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.18%	6.07%	-0.89%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.85%	11.61%	-1.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.88%	16.73%	-1.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.40%	26.90%	-5.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.60%	25.84%	-3.24%

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

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

Dividends

RQFI.L vs. CNSG.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CNSG.L UBS ETF (LU) MSCI China ESG Universal Low Carbon Select UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis	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 CNSG.L in my portfolio?

RQFI.L and CNSG.L have a correlation of 0.66, 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 CNSG.L?

On fees, CNSG.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 CNSG.L?

CNSG.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 CNSG.L?

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