How do expense ratios differ between CNYA and MCHI, and what does the 0.01% gap mean?

CNYA (stock_1) charges 0.60%, while MCHI (stock_2) charges 0.59%, a 0.01 percentage point difference. Over ten years, a 0.01% gap compounds; for every £10,000 invested, CNYA incurs £1 more in fees before investment returns. Since both are single-country emerging market ETFs, the difference is negligible. Investors should compare net assets and liquidity (MCHI: £6.1bn, CNYA: £209m) instead of assuming 0.01% matters.

What does MSCI China A expose investors to?

MCHI targets broad MSCI China indices covering large- and mid-cap Chinese companies, while CNYA focuses exclusively on MSCI China A-share indices. MCHI provides comprehensive exposure to the entire Chinese equity market; CNYA is a China A-share specific ETF. Index tracked information is not available for either, so this comparison relies on fund names and categories. CNYA's £209m net assets contrast with MCHI's £6.1bn.

What does it mean that MCHI has a much longer inception date?

MCHI launched on 29 March 2011, while CNYA launched on 13 June 2016—five years later. MCHI's longer history provides five additional years of track record data, though neither fund's index tracked information is available. CNYA's track record is shorter but reasonable for a China A-share specific ETF. Investors often prefer longer histories, but data gaps remain for both.

What is PDD Holdings' weight in MCHI, and does CNYA disclose any top holdings?

PDD Holdings is MCHI's only listed top holding at 1.65%, which is small and indicates low concentration risk. CNYA's top holdings are not available, making due diligence impossible for CNYA. MCHI also lacks sector weights, but its £6.1bn net assets provide better liquidity. Neither fund discloses comprehensive holdings data, so investors should treat these metrics cautiously.

Why does MCHI have a 0.19% higher dividend yield than CNYA, and how are distributions made?

MCHI has a 2.01% yield compared to CNYA's 1.82%, a 0.19 percentage point difference. Both funds pay dividends but reinvested income typically raises yield by 0.1-0.2%. Sector weights are unavailable, so the yield difference likely reflects different index compositions. CNYA's lower yield and 0.60% expense ratio suggest less income but similar costs. Neither discloses the income sources.

Which fund is more appropriate for a portfolio's growth allocation?

MCHI provides 2.01% yield with 1.65% top holding concentration and £6.1bn net assets, favouring growth. CNYA's 1.82% yield and China A-share focus with 0.60% fees suit income-oriented investors. Index tracked information is unavailable, so growth characteristics cannot be verified. Both fund's top holdings are sparse. Neither fund's sector weights are disclosed for portfolio allocation purposes.

Why does CNYA's smaller £209m net assets create liquidity challenges?

CNYA's £209m net assets are small versus MCHI's £6.1bn, potentially causing wider bid-ask spreads. With £6.1bn net assets, MCHI trades with lower transaction costs and tighter spreads. Both lack sector weights, but MCHI's 1.65% PDD holding shows transparency. Neither fund discloses comprehensive portfolio data. CNYA's 0.60% expense ratio and shorter 2016 inception date compound liquidity issues.

What do sector weight gaps mean for diversification?

Neither fund discloses sector weights, so true diversification remains unverifiable. CNYA's focus on China A-shares may involve different sector allocations from MCHI's broader exposure. MCHI's single top holding at 1.65% suggests diversification. Both track China equity markets with 0.59-0.60% expense ratios. The lack of sector weights prevents proper portfolio diversification assessment. Inception dates differ but neither index tracked information is available.

Why do both funds show 'Greater China Region' but differ in exposure?

Both CNYA and MCHI are classified as Greater China Region, but CNYA's fund name indicates China A-share focus. MCHI's 1.65% PDD holding suggests broader China market exposure. Neither fund discloses which MSCI index is tracked. CNYA launched on 13 June 2016 with 0.60% fees; MCHI launched on 29 March 2011 with 0.59% fees. Despite identical category labels, their exposure profiles differ. The index tracked information is unavailable for both funds.

What should investors check before committing to CNYA or MCHI?

Investors should verify: 1) actual MSCI indices being tracked, 2) comprehensive sector weights, 3) top holdings beyond disclosed PDD (1.65%) and unavailable CNYA holdings. CNYA has only £209m net assets, suggesting liquidity concerns despite 0.60% fees and 1.82% yield. MCHI's £6.1bn assets provide liquidity but with only 2.01% yield and limited top holding data. Neither fund provides complete transparency.

Can CNYA's 0.60% fee and MCHI's 0.59% fee impact a long-term investment?

MCHI's 0.59% is slightly cheaper, but a 0.01 percentage point difference is minimal compared to bid-ask spreads from CNYA's £209m vs MCHI's £6.1bn net assets. On £10,000 invested, CNYA costs £60 annually versus £59 for MCHI. Neither fund discloses sector weights or full holdings, so actual portfolio costs may vary. Investors should focus on liquidity and data gaps rather than assuming fee differences are decisive.

Why might top holdings data gaps prevent proper comparison?

CNYA discloses no top holdings, while MCHI lists only PDD (1.65%), making meaningful comparison impossible. MCHI's 1.65% single holding suggests lower concentration risk than a portfolio with unknown concentration. Sector weights are unavailable for both funds, so portfolio structure remains unverifiable. CNYA's £209m net assets raise questions about transparency. Without comprehensive data, investors should assume higher due diligence costs for both funds despite similar 0.59-0.60% expense ratios.

CNYA vs MCHI

Two funds, one decision: we compare cost, performance and what each ETF actually holds in October 2026.

This page compares CNYA (iShares MSCI China A ETF) and MCHI (iShares MSCI China ETF) on fees, holdings and dividends. CNYA charges 0.60% with $209 million net assets and 1.82% yield; MCHI charges 0.59% with $6.1 billion net assets and 2.01% yield. Index tracked information is not available for either. Educational content, not financial advice.

This page compares CNYA (iShares MSCI China A ETF) and MCHI (iShares MSCI China ETF) on fees, holdings and dividends. CNYA charges 0.60% with $209 million net assets and 1.82% yield; MCHI charges 0.59...

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

CNYA

Metric

MCHI

0.60%

Expense Ratio

0.59%

1.82%

Dividend Yield

2.01%

$208.93M

Net Assets

$6.12B

422

Holdings

586

Jun 13, 2016

Inception Date

Mar 29, 2011

–

Index Tracked

–

Greater China Region

Fund Category

Greater China Region

MCHI costs about $1.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

These funds do not share any of their top holdings.

Discover More Comparisons

CNYA vs FXI

Compare CNYA and FXI on fees, dividends, and index focus. CNYA has a 0.60% expense ratio; FXI is 0.74%. Holdings data unavailable for both funds.

EWH vs MCHI

Compare EWH and MCHI ETFs. Review expense ratios, net assets, dividend yields, top holdings, and tracking methods to decide which fund suits research.

CQQQ vs MCHI

Compare CQQQ and MCHI ETFs. Review expense ratios, net assets, dividend yields and holdings. Note index tracking data is not available for both funds.

Investment Analysis

CNYA

Pros

The fund has a high dividend yield of 1.82%, offering some income potential to investors.
Inception date of Jun 13, 2016, indicates a reasonable track record for a China A-share specific ETF.
Expense ratio of 0.60% is competitive for a single-country emerging market fund.

Considerations

Net assets of $209 million suggest potentially lower liquidity and wider bid-ask spreads.
The lack of available data for index tracked and top holdings creates uncertainty for due diligence.
Sector weights are not available, limiting the ability to assess portfolio diversification.

MCHI

Pros

Substantial net assets of $6.1 billion indicate high liquidity and ease of trading for investors.
Expense ratio of 0.59% is marginally lower, offering a slight cost efficiency advantage.
Inception date of Mar 29, 2011, provides a long history and established track record.

Considerations

Dividend yield of 2.01% is the only yield metric provided, limiting broader income comparison.
The lack of sector weights prevents a clear understanding of the fund's economic exposure.
With only one top holding (PDD at 1.65%) listed, overall concentration risk is difficult to assess.

Related Market Insights

Go Global: Why Smart Money is Fleeing US Markets

Smart money is shifting from US to international markets. Discover why global ETFs offer better valuations & diversification. Invest in undervalued European & Asian stocks with Nemo's Go Global Neme.

Aimee Silverwood | Financial Analyst

25 July 2025

Read Insight

Related Market Insights

Go Global: Why Smart Money is Fleeing US Markets

Smart money is shifting from US to international markets. Discover why global ETFs offer better valuations & diversification. Invest in undervalued European & Asian stocks with Nemo's Go Global Neme.

Aimee Silverwood | Financial Analyst

25 July 2025

Read Insight

About CNYA and MCHI

CNYA (CNYA)

iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) is an exchange‑traded fund that offers investors a convenient way to gain exposure to mainland China A‑share companies through a single traded security. The fund seeks to replicate the performance of an index representing large‑ and mid‑cap Chinese mainland equities across multiple sectors, providing diversified access to domestic Chinese growth themes. Investors should review the fund’s factsheet and prospectus for details on the exact index, fees, tracking error and index methodology. Key considerations include higher volatility compared with developed markets, regulatory and geopolitical risk, currency fluctuations and potential liquidity constraints in local markets. As with all ETFs, there are trade‑related costs such as bid‑ask spreads and the possibility of tracking deviation. This content is general educational information only and not personalised financial advice; the value of investments can fall as well as rise and returns are not guaranteed. Consider suitability and, if needed, consult a regulated financial adviser.

MCHI (MCHI)

Which Baskets Do They Appear In?

Go Global

As investors seek alternatives to US assets, these international markets are gaining attention. Our analysts have carefully selected these ETFs to help you capitalize on global opportunities and diversify beyond US borders.

Published: 8 May 2025

Explore Basket