PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XCX6.L vs. CM5S.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XCX6.L vs. CM5S.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI China UCITS ETF 1C (XCX6.L) and Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (CM5S.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XCX6.L achieves a -7.52% return, which is significantly lower than CM5S.L's 19.25% return.


XCX6.L

1D
-0.40%
1M
-1.77%
YTD
-7.52%
6M
-9.53%
1Y
5.17%
3Y*
7.33%
5Y*
-4.51%
10Y*
5.39%

CM5S.L

1D
-0.01%
1M
2.36%
YTD
19.25%
6M
27.95%
1Y
71.20%
3Y*
19.85%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XCX6.L vs. CM5S.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
XCX6.L
Xtrackers MSCI China UCITS ETF 1C
-7.52%22.42%20.57%-17.10%8.88%
CM5S.L
Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc
19.25%42.07%14.29%-14.04%13.69%

Correlation

The correlation between XCX6.L and CM5S.L is 0.64, 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

0.64

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

0.65

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 10, 2022

0.65

The correlation between XCX6.L and CM5S.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

XCX6.L vs. CM5S.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XCX6.L
XCX6.L Risk / Return Rank: 1313
Overall Rank
XCX6.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1313
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XCX6.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1313
Sortino Ratio Rank
XCX6.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1313
Omega Ratio Rank
XCX6.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1313
Calmar Ratio Rank
XCX6.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1212
Martin Ratio Rank

CM5S.L
CM5S.L Risk / Return Rank: 9191
Overall Rank
CM5S.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9494
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CM5S.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9090
Sortino Ratio Rank
CM5S.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9090
Omega Ratio Rank
CM5S.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
CM5S.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9191
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.

XCX6.L vs. CM5S.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI China UCITS ETF 1C (XCX6.L) and Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (CM5S.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.


XCX6.LCM5S.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-3.21

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-3.69

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.06

1.57

-0.51

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.29

5.48

-5.18

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.62

21.45

-20.83

XCX6.L vs. CM5S.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XCX6.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.28, which is lower than the CM5S.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XCX6.L and CM5S.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


XCX6.LCM5S.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.28

3.49

-3.21

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.16

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.21

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.15

0.68

-0.53

Drawdowns

XCX6.L vs. CM5S.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XCX6.L drawdown since its inception was -57.08%, which is greater than CM5S.L's maximum drawdown of -38.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XCX6.L and CM5S.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XCX6.LCM5S.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-57.08%

-38.57%

-18.51%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.48%

-12.93%

-4.55%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.89%

-26.12%

+1.23%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-49.99%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-57.08%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-34.10%

-4.43%

-29.67%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-20.91%

-13.46%

-7.45%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.35%

3.31%

+5.04%

Volatility

XCX6.L vs. CM5S.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers MSCI China UCITS ETF 1C (XCX6.L) has a higher volatility of 7.09% compared to Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (CM5S.L) at 6.29%. This indicates that XCX6.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CM5S.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XCX6.LCM5S.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.09%

6.29%

+0.80%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.08%

15.26%

-2.18%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.39%

20.30%

-1.91%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

27.71%

25.03%

+2.68%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.27%

25.03%

+0.24%

XCX6.L vs. CM5S.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XCX6.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than CM5S.L's 0.35% expense ratio.


Dividends

XCX6.L vs. CM5S.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XCX6.L nor CM5S.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


XCX6.L and CM5S.L have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CM5S.L is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CM5S.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for XCX6.L.

XCX6.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while CM5S.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: DWS and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for XCX6.L and 0.35% for CM5S.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XCX6.L and CM5S.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