PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
UB20.L vs. RQFI.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

UB20.L vs. RQFI.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026
Documentation

UB20.L (UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Pacific (ex Japan) UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis) and RQFI.L (Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D) are both exchange-traded funds - UB20.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Pacific Ex Japan NR USD, while RQFI.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, UB20.L returned 7.32%/yr vs 4.84%/yr for RQFI.L. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UB20.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for RQFI.L.

Performance

UB20.L vs. RQFI.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Pacific (ex Japan) UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UB20.L) and Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UB20.L achieves a 10.97% return, which is significantly higher than RQFI.L's 6.78% return. Over the past 10 years, UB20.L has outperformed RQFI.L with an annualized return of 7.32%, while RQFI.L has yielded a comparatively lower 4.84% annualized return.

UB20.L

1D
-0.24%
1M
1.61%
6M
9.07%
YTD
10.97%
1Y
16.04%
3Y*
11.71%
5Y*
6.54%
10Y*
7.32%

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

UB20.L vs. RQFI.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
UB20.L
UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Pacific (ex Japan) UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis		10.97%12.00%6.98%-0.10%5.26%5.29%3.52%14.10%-5.54%14.53%
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%

Correlation

The correlation between UB20.L and RQFI.L is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.39

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

0.35

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

0.40

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

0.49

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

0.47

The correlation between UB20.L and RQFI.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.35 (3 years) to 0.49 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

UB20.L vs. RQFI.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
UB20.L
RQFI.L

Financial Services

45.1%
20.4%

Basic Materials

16.3%
10.7%

Industrials

8.5%
16.6%

Real Estate

7.8%
0.5%

Consumer Cyclical

6.3%
6.7%

Utilities

3.5%
3.0%

Healthcare

3.3%
4.9%

Consumer Defensive

3.0%
7.4%

Energy

2.7%
2.8%

Communication Services

2.6%
0.8%

Technology

1.0%
26.3%

Financial Services

UB20.L
45.1%
RQFI.L
20.4%

Basic Materials

UB20.L
16.3%
RQFI.L
10.7%

Industrials

UB20.L
8.5%
RQFI.L
16.6%

Real Estate

UB20.L
7.8%
RQFI.L
0.5%

Consumer Cyclical

UB20.L
6.3%
RQFI.L
6.7%

Utilities

UB20.L
3.5%
RQFI.L
3.0%

Healthcare

UB20.L
3.3%
RQFI.L
4.9%

Consumer Defensive

UB20.L
3.0%
RQFI.L
7.4%

Energy

UB20.L
2.7%
RQFI.L
2.8%

Communication Services

UB20.L
2.6%
RQFI.L
0.8%

Technology

UB20.L
1.0%
RQFI.L
26.3%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Pacific (ex Japan) UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis

Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D

Often compared with UB20.L:
UB20.L vs. EQQQ.LUB20.L vs. XKS2.LUB20.L vs. UC44.LUB20.L vs. FRIN.LUB20.L vs. HMEF.LUB20.L vs. PADV.LUB20.L vs. ASDV.L
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

Return for Risk

UB20.L vs. RQFI.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
UB20.L
UB20.L Risk / Return Rank: 4949
Overall Rank
UB20.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4949
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UB20.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
UB20.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4848
Omega Ratio Rank
UB20.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
UB20.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4545
Martin Ratio Rank
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
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.

UB20.L vs. RQFI.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Pacific (ex Japan) UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UB20.L) and Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.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.

UB20.LRQFI.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.42
1.65

-0.23

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.11
2.26

-0.15

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.26

1.29

-0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.18

3.40

-1.22

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.04

10.50

-4.46

UB20.L vs. RQFI.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UB20.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.42, which is comparable to the RQFI.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UB20.L and RQFI.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

UB20.L vs. RQFI.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UB20.L drawdown since its inception was -32.34%, smaller than the maximum RQFI.L drawdown of -47.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UB20.L and RQFI.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

UB20.LRQFI.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-32.34%

-47.55%

+15.21%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.32%

-8.13%

+0.81%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.80%

-25.09%

+7.29%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.80%

-41.72%

+23.92%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-32.34%

-46.36%

+14.02%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.18%

-14.24%

+13.06%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.49%

-24.67%

+18.18%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.65%

2.64%

+0.01%

Volatility

UB20.L vs. RQFI.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Pacific (ex Japan) UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UB20.L) is 2.64%, while Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.L) has a volatility of 7.94%. This indicates that UB20.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RQFI.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

UB20.LRQFI.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.64%

7.94%

-5.30%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.07%

12.27%

-3.20%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.29%

16.79%

-5.50%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.00%

20.87%

-6.87%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.73%

21.72%

-5.99%

UB20.L vs. RQFI.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

UB20.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than RQFI.L's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

UB20.L vs. RQFI.L - Dividend Comparison

UB20.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.87%, more than RQFI.L's 1.48% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
UB20.L
UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Pacific (ex Japan) UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis		2.87%3.86%3.26%3.96%3.66%2.60%3.05%4.08%4.33%3.43%4.00%5.19%

Frequently Asked Questions

UB20.L and RQFI.L have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, UB20.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

UB20.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for RQFI.L.

UB20.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while RQFI.L is China Equities. UB20.L tracks MSCI Pacific Ex Japan NR USD, while RQFI.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: UBS and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for UB20.L and 0.65% for RQFI.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for UB20.L and RQFI.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