PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XX25.L vs. RQFI.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XX25.L vs. RQFI.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XX25.L (Xtrackers FTSE China 50 UCITS ETF 1C) and RQFI.L (Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D) are both China Equities funds from Xtrackers - XX25.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD while RQFI.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XX25.L returned 4.94%/yr vs 6.41%/yr for RQFI.L. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XX25.L charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for RQFI.L.

Performance

XX25.L vs. RQFI.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Xtrackers FTSE China 50 UCITS ETF 1C (XX25.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, XX25.L achieves a 8.96% return, which is significantly lower than RQFI.L's 9.58% return. Over the past 10 years, XX25.L has underperformed RQFI.L with an annualized return of 4.94%, while RQFI.L has yielded a comparatively higher 6.41% annualized return.

XX25.L

1D
-0.66%
1M
2.16%
YTD
8.96%
6M
12.27%
1Y
36.94%
3Y*
13.47%
5Y*
0.29%
10Y*
4.94%

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

XX25.L vs. RQFI.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XX25.L
Xtrackers FTSE China 50 UCITS ETF 1C		8.96%17.72%29.08%-18.23%-11.14%-19.11%6.62%10.00%-7.19%23.45%
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%

Correlation

The correlation between XX25.L and RQFI.L is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

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

0.93

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

0.76

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

0.73

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

0.70

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

0.69

Over the past year, XX25.L and RQFI.L have become more correlated (0.93) than their long-term average of 0.69, meaning their price movements have been converging.

XX25.L vs. RQFI.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XX25.L
RQFI.L

Technology

27.2%
26.3%

Financial Services

18.8%
20.4%

Industrials

15.7%
16.6%

Basic Materials

12.4%
10.7%

Consumer Defensive

7.4%
7.4%

Consumer Cyclical

5.6%
6.7%

Healthcare

4.3%
4.9%

Energy

3.4%
2.8%

Utilities

3.2%
3.0%

Communication Services

1.4%
0.8%

Real Estate

0.6%
0.5%

Technology

XX25.L
27.2%
RQFI.L
26.3%

Financial Services

XX25.L
18.8%
RQFI.L
20.4%

Industrials

XX25.L
15.7%
RQFI.L
16.6%

Basic Materials

XX25.L
12.4%
RQFI.L
10.7%

Consumer Defensive

XX25.L
7.4%
RQFI.L
7.4%

Consumer Cyclical

XX25.L
5.6%
RQFI.L
6.7%

Healthcare

XX25.L
4.3%
RQFI.L
4.9%

Energy

XX25.L
3.4%
RQFI.L
2.8%

Utilities

XX25.L
3.2%
RQFI.L
3.0%

Communication Services

XX25.L
1.4%
RQFI.L
0.8%

Real Estate

XX25.L
0.6%
RQFI.L
0.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

Xtrackers FTSE China 50 UCITS ETF 1C

Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D

Often compared with XX25.L:
XX25.L vs. IITU.LXX25.L vs. EXUS.LXX25.L vs. FRCH.LXX25.L vs. JRCD.LXX25.L vs. XCHA.LXX25.L vs. IASH.LXX25.L vs. HMCA.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. XCNA.LRQFI.L vs. CM5S.L

Return for Risk

XX25.L vs. RQFI.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XX25.L
XX25.L Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
XX25.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XX25.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
XX25.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7171
Omega Ratio Rank
XX25.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
XX25.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank
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
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.

XX25.L vs. RQFI.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers FTSE China 50 UCITS ETF 1C (XX25.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.

XX25.LRQFI.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.34
2.65

-0.30

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.13
3.51

-0.38

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.42

1.47

-0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.10

6.91

-1.81

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.08

17.89

-2.81

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XX25.L vs. RQFI.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XX25.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.34, which is comparable to the RQFI.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XX25.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

XX25.LRQFI.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.34

2.65

-0.30

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.01

-0.00

+0.01

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.20

0.31

-0.11

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.09

0.36

-0.27

Drawdowns

XX25.L vs. RQFI.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XX25.L drawdown since its inception was -59.20%, which is greater than RQFI.L's maximum drawdown of -47.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XX25.L and RQFI.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XX25.LRQFI.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-59.20%

-47.55%

-11.65%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.21%

-5.69%

-1.52%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-28.00%

-25.09%

-2.91%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-47.66%

-41.72%

-5.94%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-54.65%

-46.36%

-8.29%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-15.09%

-12.00%

-3.09%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-23.23%

-22.37%

-0.86%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.44%

2.18%

+0.26%

Volatility

XX25.L vs. RQFI.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers FTSE China 50 UCITS ETF 1C (XX25.L) has a higher volatility of 5.59% compared to Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 UCITS ETF 1D (RQFI.L) at 5.18%. This indicates that XX25.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RQFI.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XX25.LRQFI.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.59%

5.18%

+0.41%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.71%

9.85%

+0.86%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.69%

14.88%

+0.81%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

27.24%

21.40%

+5.84%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.47%

22.60%

+1.87%

XX25.L vs. RQFI.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XX25.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than RQFI.L's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

XX25.L vs. RQFI.L - Dividend Comparison

XX25.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RQFI.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%.

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%
XX25.L
Xtrackers FTSE China 50 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

With a correlation of 0.93, XX25.L and RQFI.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

On fees, XX25.L is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XX25.L is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for RQFI.L.

XX25.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while RQFI.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for XX25.L and 0.65% for RQFI.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XX25.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