PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XCHA.L vs. FLQA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XCHA.L vs. FLQA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers CSI 300 Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCHA.L) and Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF (FLQA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XCHA.L achieves a 9.79% return, which is significantly lower than FLQA.L's 32.52% return.


XCHA.L

1D
-0.23%
1M
-1.60%
6M
7.00%
YTD
9.79%
1Y
33.96%
3Y*
14.18%
5Y*
2.69%
10Y*
8.65%

FLQA.L

1D
-1.74%
1M
-9.13%
6M
26.58%
YTD
32.52%
1Y
52.26%
3Y*
25.15%
5Y*
12.63%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XCHA.L vs. FLQA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
XCHA.L
Xtrackers CSI 300 Swap UCITS ETF 1C
9.79%30.11%16.00%-11.00%-24.25%3.24%45.85%40.57%-10.94%
FLQA.L
Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF
32.52%29.84%7.76%12.02%-12.93%4.57%6.71%9.75%-5.84%

Correlation

The correlation between XCHA.L and FLQA.L is 0.53, 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

0.53

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

0.45

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

0.54

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2018

0.61

The correlation between XCHA.L and FLQA.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.45 (3 years) to 0.61 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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


Return for Risk

XCHA.L vs. FLQA.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

XCHA.L
XCHA.L Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
XCHA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6868
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XCHA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6868
Sortino Ratio Rank
XCHA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
XCHA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9292
Calmar Ratio Rank
XCHA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8484
Martin Ratio Rank

FLQA.L
FLQA.L Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8181
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7979
Omega Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8585
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
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.

XCHA.L vs. FLQA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers CSI 300 Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCHA.L) and Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF (FLQA.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.


XCHA.LFLQA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.26

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.15

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.32

1.37

-0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.82

3.75

+1.06

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.29

11.86

+1.43

XCHA.L vs. FLQA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XCHA.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.80, which is comparable to the FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XCHA.L and FLQA.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

XCHA.L vs. FLQA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XCHA.L drawdown since its inception was -50.90%, which is greater than FLQA.L's maximum drawdown of -29.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XCHA.L and FLQA.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XCHA.LFLQA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-50.90%

-29.21%

-21.69%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.02%

-13.77%

+6.75%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.85%

-22.19%

-4.66%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-39.75%

-25.38%

-14.37%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-44.89%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.94%

-12.64%

+7.70%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-24.00%

-7.22%

-16.78%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.55%

4.36%

-1.81%

Volatility

XCHA.L vs. FLQA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers CSI 300 Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCHA.L) is 8.65%, while Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF (FLQA.L) has a volatility of 11.18%. This indicates that XCHA.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLQA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XCHA.LFLQA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.65%

11.18%

-2.53%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.40%

22.99%

-8.59%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.83%

25.11%

-6.28%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.62%

17.74%

+4.88%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.77%

18.52%

+4.25%

XCHA.L vs. FLQA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XCHA.L has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than FLQA.L's 0.14% expense ratio.


Dividends

XCHA.L vs. FLQA.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XCHA.L nor FLQA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


XCHA.L and FLQA.L have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, FLQA.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

FLQA.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for XCHA.L.

XCHA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while FLQA.L tracks Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and Franklin. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for XCHA.L and 0.14% for FLQA.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XCHA.L and FLQA.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