PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

RQFI.L vs. IDFX.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

RQFI.L (Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D) and IDFX.L (iShares China Large Cap UCITS) are both China Equities funds - RQFI.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY while IDFX.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RQFI.L returned 6.41%/yr vs 3.71%/yr for IDFX.L. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RQFI.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.74%/yr for IDFX.L.

Performance

RQFI.L vs. IDFX.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 China Large Cap UCITS (IDFX.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

RQFI.L is traded in GBp, while IDFX.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the IDFX.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 IDFX.L's -6.96% return. Over the past 10 years, RQFI.L has outperformed IDFX.L with an annualized return of 6.41%, while IDFX.L has yielded a comparatively lower 3.71% 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%

IDFX.L

1D
-0.21%
1M
-1.77%
YTD
-6.96%
6M
-9.13%
1Y
1.24%
3Y*
9.28%
5Y*
-2.04%
10Y*
3.71%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
IDFX.L
iShares China Large Cap UCITS		-6.96%19.20%33.33%-17.93%-11.03%-19.70%7.20%8.74%-6.85%23.55%

Correlation

The correlation between RQFI.L and IDFX.L is 0.60, 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

0.60

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

0.63

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

0.65

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

0.64

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 29, 2014

0.64

The correlation between RQFI.L and IDFX.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors
RQFI.L
IDFX.L

Technology

26.3%
5.4%

Financial Services

20.4%
34.7%

Industrials

16.6%
3.1%

Basic Materials

10.7%
4.1%

Consumer Defensive

7.4%
0.9%

Consumer Cyclical

6.7%
26.6%

Healthcare

4.9%
2.3%

Utilities

3.0%
0.4%

Energy

2.8%
5.2%

Communication Services

0.8%
16.2%

Real Estate

0.5%
1.1%

Technology

RQFI.L
26.3%
IDFX.L
5.4%

Financial Services

RQFI.L
20.4%
IDFX.L
34.7%

Industrials

RQFI.L
16.6%
IDFX.L
3.1%

Basic Materials

RQFI.L
10.7%
IDFX.L
4.1%

Consumer Defensive

RQFI.L
7.4%
IDFX.L
0.9%

Consumer Cyclical

RQFI.L
6.7%
IDFX.L
26.6%

Healthcare

RQFI.L
4.9%
IDFX.L
2.3%

Utilities

RQFI.L
3.0%
IDFX.L
0.4%

Energy

RQFI.L
2.8%
IDFX.L
5.2%

Communication Services

RQFI.L
0.8%
IDFX.L
16.2%

Real Estate

RQFI.L
0.5%
IDFX.L
1.1%

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 China Large Cap 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. XCNA.LRQFI.L vs. CM5S.L
Often compared with IDFX.L:
IDFX.L vs. FXIIDFX.L vs. HMCD.LIDFX.L vs. C500.LIDFX.L vs. CM5S.LIDFX.L vs. CNDX.LIDFX.L vs. C300.LIDFX.L vs. JRCE.L

Return for Risk

RQFI.L vs. IDFX.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: 8484
Overall Rank
RQFI.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RQFI.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
RQFI.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
RQFI.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
RQFI.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8686
Martin Ratio Rank
IDFX.L
IDFX.L Risk / Return Rank: 99
Overall Rank
IDFX.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IDFX.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
Sortino Ratio Rank
IDFX.L Omega Ratio Rank: 99
Omega Ratio Rank
IDFX.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
Calmar Ratio Rank
IDFX.L Martin Ratio Rank: 99
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. IDFX.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 China Large Cap UCITS (IDFX.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.LIDFX.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.65
0.07

+2.58

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.51
0.23

+3.29

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.47

1.03

+0.44

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

6.91

0.08

+6.83

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

17.89

0.17

+17.72

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. IDFX.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RQFI.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.65, which is higher than the IDFX.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RQFI.L and IDFX.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

RQFI.LIDFX.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.65

0.07

+2.58

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.00

-0.07

+0.07

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.31

0.15

+0.17

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.36

0.11

+0.25

Drawdowns

RQFI.L vs. IDFX.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RQFI.L drawdown since its inception was -47.55%, smaller than the maximum IDFX.L drawdown of -60.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RQFI.L and IDFX.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

RQFI.LIDFX.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-47.55%

-60.59%

+13.04%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.69%

-15.71%

+10.02%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.09%

-28.00%

+2.91%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-41.72%

-47.57%

+5.85%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-46.36%

-54.56%

+8.20%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-12.00%

-24.11%

+12.11%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-22.37%

-22.86%

+0.49%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.18%

7.24%

-5.06%

Volatility

RQFI.L vs. IDFX.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.L) is 5.18%, while iShares China Large Cap UCITS (IDFX.L) has a volatility of 7.03%. This indicates that RQFI.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IDFX.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

RQFI.LIDFX.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.18%

7.03%

-1.85%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.85%

13.43%

-3.58%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.88%

18.75%

-3.87%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.40%

28.65%

-7.25%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.60%

25.52%

-2.92%

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

RQFI.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than IDFX.L's 0.74% expense ratio.

Dividends

RQFI.L vs. IDFX.L - Dividend Comparison

RQFI.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%, less than IDFX.L's 1.92% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IDFX.L
iShares China Large Cap UCITS		1.92%1.76%2.38%2.43%2.36%1.86%2.39%2.44%3.04%2.35%2.47%2.70%
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

RQFI.L and IDFX.L have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, RQFI.L is cheaper at 0.65% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

RQFI.L is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for IDFX.L.

RQFI.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while IDFX.L tracks MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for RQFI.L and 0.74% for IDFX.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RQFI.L and IDFX.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