YINN vs. MCHS

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

YINN (Direxion Daily China 3x Bull Shares) and MCHS (Matthews China Discovery Active ETF) are both China Equities funds. YINN is passively managed, while MCHS is actively managed. Over the past year, YINN returned -36.89% vs 53.82% for MCHS. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. YINN charges 1.52%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for MCHS.

Performance

YINN vs. MCHS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Direxion Daily China 3x Bull Shares (YINN) and Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, YINN achieves a -35.64% return, which is significantly lower than MCHS's 39.63% return.

YINN

• 1D: 4.55%
• 1M: -8.89%
• 6M: -42.95%
• YTD: -35.64%
• 1Y: -36.89%
• 3Y*: -8.66%
• 5Y*: -38.06%
• 10Y*: -20.77%

MCHS

• 1D: -2.39%
• 1M: -4.40%
• 6M: 32.59%
• YTD: 39.63%
• 1Y: 53.82%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

YINN vs. MCHS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
YINN Direxion Daily China 3x Bull Shares	-35.64%	54.21%	67.20%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	39.63%	31.19%	6.53%

Correlation

The correlation between YINN and MCHS is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2024	0.62

Over the past year, the correlation between YINN and MCHS has dropped to 0.41 - well below their long-term average of 0.62, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

YINN vs. MCHS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	YINN	MCHS
Financial Services	34.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	26.4%	4.5%
Communication Services	16.3%	1.2%
Technology	5.4%	49.7%
Energy	5.3%	6.3%
Basic Materials	3.9%	8.1%
Industrials	3.2%	27.8%
Healthcare	2.3%	2.1%
Real Estate	1.1%	1.6%
Consumer Defensive	0.9%	0.8%
Utilities	0.4%	2.1%

Return for Risk

YINN vs. MCHS — Risk / Return Rank

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

YINN

YINN Risk / Return Rank: 4
YINN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
YINN Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
YINN Omega Ratio Rank: 5
YINN Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
YINN Martin Ratio Rank: 3

MCHS

MCHS Risk / Return Rank: 75
MCHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
MCHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
MCHS Omega Ratio Rank: 74
MCHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
MCHS Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

YINN vs. MCHS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily China 3x Bull Shares (YINN) and Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS). 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.

	YINN	MCHS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.62	1.92	-2.55
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.67	2.46	-3.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.92	1.35	-0.42
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.60	3.78	-4.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.22	11.50	-12.72

YINN vs. MCHS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current YINN Sharpe Ratio is -0.62, which is lower than the MCHS Sharpe Ratio of 1.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of YINN and MCHS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

YINN vs. MCHS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum YINN drawdown since its inception was -98.87%, which is greater than MCHS's maximum drawdown of -23.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for YINN and MCHS.

Drawdown Indicators

	YINN	MCHS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-98.87%	-23.75%	-75.12%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-61.64%	-14.32%	-47.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-69.08%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-95.48%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-98.59%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-97.72%	-13.83%	-83.89%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-68.66%	-7.52%	-61.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	30.24%	4.69%	+25.55%

Volatility

YINN vs. MCHS - Volatility Comparison

Direxion Daily China 3x Bull Shares (YINN) has a higher volatility of 18.79% compared to Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) at 16.56%. This indicates that YINN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MCHS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	YINN	MCHS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	18.79%	16.56%	+2.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	42.66%	25.23%	+17.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	59.57%	28.16%	+31.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	94.21%	29.80%	+64.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	81.55%	29.80%	+51.75%

YINN vs. MCHS - Expense Ratio Comparison

YINN has a 1.52% expense ratio, which is higher than MCHS's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

YINN vs. MCHS - Dividend Comparison

YINN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.39%, less than MCHS's 2.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	2.55%	3.56%	5.48%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
YINN Direxion Daily China 3x Bull Shares	1.39%	1.12%	1.81%	4.17%	1.16%	0.73%	0.76%	1.38%	1.02%	1.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both YINN and MCHS in my portfolio?

YINN and MCHS have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, YINN or MCHS?

YINN has higher volatility (18.79%) compared to MCHS (16.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, YINN dropped -98.87% vs MCHS's -23.75%.

Which ETF is better, YINN or MCHS?

On 1-year performance, MCHS leads with 53.82% vs -36.89% for YINN. On fees, MCHS is cheaper at 0.89% per year. On volatility, MCHS has been the lower-risk option at 16.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, YINN or MCHS?

Over the 1-year period, MCHS has performed better with a 53.82% return vs -36.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, YINN or MCHS?

MCHS is cheaper with a 0.89% expense ratio, compared with 1.52% for YINN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, YINN or MCHS?

MCHS has the higher dividend yield at 2.55%, compared with 1.39% for YINN.

What is the main difference between YINN and MCHS?

They also come from different issuers: Direxion and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 1.52% for YINN and 0.89% for MCHS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.92 vs -0.62), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.