PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

RQFI.L vs. XNAQ.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

RQFI.L (Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D) and XNAQ.L (Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C) are both exchange-traded funds - RQFI.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while XNAQ.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RQFI.L returned -0.04%/yr vs 18.96%/yr for XNAQ.L. At a 0.20 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RQFI.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XNAQ.L.

Performance

RQFI.L vs. XNAQ.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 Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

RQFI.L is traded in GBp, while XNAQ.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the XNAQ.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 lower than XNAQ.L's 19.89% 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%

XNAQ.L

1D
-0.63%
1M
9.63%
YTD
19.89%
6M
18.46%
1Y
41.84%
3Y*
24.81%
5Y*
18.96%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
RQFI.L
Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D		9.58%18.47%15.28%-18.09%-17.88%-4.38%
XNAQ.L
Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C		19.89%11.71%28.62%47.83%-25.44%26.22%

Correlation

The correlation between RQFI.L and XNAQ.L is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.30

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

0.16

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

0.19

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 29, 2021

0.20

The correlation between RQFI.L and XNAQ.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.16 (3 years) to 0.30 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors
RQFI.L
XNAQ.L

Technology

26.3%
53.7%

Financial Services

20.4%
0.2%

Industrials

16.6%
3.1%

Basic Materials

10.7%
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

7.4%
7.7%

Consumer Cyclical

6.7%
12.2%

Healthcare

4.9%
4.2%

Utilities

3.0%
1.4%

Energy

2.8%
0.6%

Communication Services

0.8%
15.8%

Real Estate

0.5%
0.1%

Technology

RQFI.L
26.3%
XNAQ.L
53.7%

Financial Services

RQFI.L
20.4%
XNAQ.L
0.2%

Industrials

RQFI.L
16.6%
XNAQ.L
3.1%

Basic Materials

RQFI.L
10.7%
XNAQ.L
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

RQFI.L
7.4%
XNAQ.L
7.7%

Consumer Cyclical

RQFI.L
6.7%
XNAQ.L
12.2%

Healthcare

RQFI.L
4.9%
XNAQ.L
4.2%

Utilities

RQFI.L
3.0%
XNAQ.L
1.4%

Energy

RQFI.L
2.8%
XNAQ.L
0.6%

Communication Services

RQFI.L
0.8%
XNAQ.L
15.8%

Real Estate

RQFI.L
0.5%
XNAQ.L
0.1%

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

Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C

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 XNAQ.L:
XNAQ.L vs. EQQQ.LXNAQ.L vs. CNX1.LXNAQ.L vs. CNDX.LXNAQ.L vs. XDWT.DEXNAQ.L vs. QQQXNAQ.L vs. EQGB.LXNAQ.L vs. XLKQ.L

Return for Risk

RQFI.L vs. XNAQ.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
XNAQ.L
XNAQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
XNAQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8686
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XNAQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
XNAQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8383
Omega Ratio Rank
XNAQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
XNAQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
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. XNAQ.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 Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.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.LXNAQ.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.65
2.83

-0.18

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.51
3.70

-0.19

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.47

1.50

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

6.91

3.79

+3.12

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

17.89

11.13

+6.76

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. XNAQ.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RQFI.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.65, which is comparable to the XNAQ.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RQFI.L and XNAQ.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.LXNAQ.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.65

2.83

-0.18

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.00

1.00

-1.00

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

0.93

-0.57

Drawdowns

RQFI.L vs. XNAQ.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RQFI.L drawdown since its inception was -47.55%, which is greater than XNAQ.L's maximum drawdown of -27.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RQFI.L and XNAQ.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

RQFI.LXNAQ.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-47.55%

-27.52%

-20.03%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.69%

-10.99%

+5.30%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.09%

-24.56%

-0.53%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-41.72%

-27.52%

-14.20%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-46.36%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-12.00%

-0.63%

-11.37%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-22.37%

-7.01%

-15.36%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.18%

3.75%

-1.57%

Volatility

RQFI.L vs. XNAQ.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.L) has a higher volatility of 5.18% compared to Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.L) at 4.18%. This indicates that RQFI.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XNAQ.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

RQFI.LXNAQ.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.18%

4.18%

+1.00%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.85%

10.38%

-0.53%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.88%

14.73%

+0.15%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.40%

19.04%

+2.36%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.60%

19.13%

+3.47%

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

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

Dividends

RQFI.L vs. XNAQ.L - Dividend Comparison

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

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
XNAQ.L
Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

RQFI.L and XNAQ.L have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

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

RQFI.L is categorized as China Equities, while XNAQ.L is Nasdaq-100. RQFI.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while XNAQ.L tracks Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for RQFI.L and 0.20% for XNAQ.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RQFI.L and XNAQ.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