PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

RQFI.L vs. IAPD.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026
Documentation

RQFI.L (Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D) and IAPD.L (iShares Asia Pacific Dividend UCITS) are both exchange-traded funds - RQFI.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while IAPD.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI AC Asia Pacific NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RQFI.L returned 4.84%/yr vs 6.52%/yr for IAPD.L. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RQFI.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for IAPD.L.

Performance

RQFI.L vs. IAPD.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 Asia Pacific Dividend UCITS (IAPD.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RQFI.L achieves a 6.78% return, which is significantly lower than IAPD.L's 14.62% return. Over the past 10 years, RQFI.L has underperformed IAPD.L with an annualized return of 4.84%, while IAPD.L has yielded a comparatively higher 6.52% 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%

IAPD.L

1D
0.00%
1M
1.51%
6M
10.11%
YTD
14.62%
1Y
31.27%
3Y*
19.11%
5Y*
11.12%
10Y*
6.52%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RQFI.L vs. IAPD.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%
IAPD.L
iShares Asia Pacific Dividend UCITS		14.62%20.92%7.89%7.23%9.69%4.75%-12.58%10.23%-10.11%6.71%

Correlation

The correlation between RQFI.L and IAPD.L is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.32

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

0.35

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

0.36

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

0.44

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

0.42

The correlation between RQFI.L and IAPD.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.32 (1 year) to 0.44 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors
RQFI.L
IAPD.L

Technology

26.3%
1.8%

Financial Services

20.4%
30.8%

Industrials

16.6%
6.7%

Basic Materials

10.7%
18.2%

Consumer Defensive

7.4%
4.6%

Consumer Cyclical

6.7%
11.1%

Healthcare

4.9%
3.4%

Utilities

3.0%
4.1%

Energy

2.8%
4.8%

Communication Services

0.8%
4.4%

Real Estate

0.5%
10.0%

Technology

RQFI.L
26.3%
IAPD.L
1.8%

Financial Services

RQFI.L
20.4%
IAPD.L
30.8%

Industrials

RQFI.L
16.6%
IAPD.L
6.7%

Basic Materials

RQFI.L
10.7%
IAPD.L
18.2%

Consumer Defensive

RQFI.L
7.4%
IAPD.L
4.6%

Consumer Cyclical

RQFI.L
6.7%
IAPD.L
11.1%

Healthcare

RQFI.L
4.9%
IAPD.L
3.4%

Utilities

RQFI.L
3.0%
IAPD.L
4.1%

Energy

RQFI.L
2.8%
IAPD.L
4.8%

Communication Services

RQFI.L
0.8%
IAPD.L
4.4%

Real Estate

RQFI.L
0.5%
IAPD.L
10.0%

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 Asia Pacific Dividend UCITS

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 IAPD.L:
IAPD.L vs. 100D.LIAPD.L vs. JEPQIAPD.L vs. NOBLIAPD.L vs. CNDX.LIAPD.L vs. VAPX.LIAPD.L vs. IJRIAPD.L vs. VOO

Return for Risk

RQFI.L vs. IAPD.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
IAPD.L
IAPD.L Risk / Return Rank: 9191
Overall Rank
IAPD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9494
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IAPD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9595
Sortino Ratio Rank
IAPD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9393
Omega Ratio Rank
IAPD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9191
Calmar Ratio Rank
IAPD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
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. IAPD.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 Asia Pacific Dividend UCITS (IAPD.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.LIAPD.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.65
2.88

-1.23

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.26
4.18

-1.91

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.52

-0.23

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.40

4.49

-1.09

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.50

12.47

-1.97

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

The current RQFI.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.65, which is lower than the IAPD.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RQFI.L and IAPD.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. IAPD.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RQFI.L drawdown since its inception was -47.55%, smaller than the maximum IAPD.L drawdown of -56.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RQFI.L and IAPD.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

RQFI.LIAPD.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-47.55%

-56.01%

+8.46%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.13%

-6.93%

-1.20%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.09%

-16.92%

-8.17%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-41.72%

-16.92%

-24.80%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-46.36%

-38.09%

-8.27%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-14.24%

-1.69%

-12.55%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-24.67%

-8.66%

-16.01%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.64%

2.50%

+0.14%

Volatility

RQFI.L vs. IAPD.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.L) has a higher volatility of 7.94% compared to iShares Asia Pacific Dividend UCITS (IAPD.L) at 2.70%. This indicates that RQFI.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IAPD.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

RQFI.LIAPD.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.94%

2.70%

+5.24%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.27%

8.55%

+3.72%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.79%

10.83%

+5.96%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.87%

12.47%

+8.40%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.72%

15.39%

+6.33%

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

RQFI.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than IAPD.L's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

RQFI.L vs. IAPD.L - Dividend Comparison

RQFI.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.48%, less than IAPD.L's 4.16% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IAPD.L
iShares Asia Pacific Dividend UCITS		4.16%4.20%5.25%5.77%6.84%5.51%3.70%5.67%5.87%4.71%4.22%5.31%
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 IAPD.L have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, IAPD.L is cheaper at 0.59% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

IAPD.L is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for RQFI.L.

RQFI.L is categorized as China Equities, while IAPD.L is Asia Pacific Equities. RQFI.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while IAPD.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Pacific NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for RQFI.L and 0.59% for IAPD.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RQFI.L and IAPD.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