EWW vs MCHI: Which ETF Is Better in 2026?
A metric-by-metric comparison of iShares MSCI Mexico ETF (EWW) and iShares MSCI China ETF (MCHI) — both Single Country - Emerging funds — using ETFValuer's daily-updated rankings.
Educational content — not financial advice. Data as of July 25, 2026. ~5 minute read.
The Verdict
EWW and MCHI compete directly — both are Single Country - Emerging funds chasing the same job in a portfolio. That makes this a genuine either/or: the index each tracks, what it costs, and how it has handled drawdowns are what separate them, not the broad exposure they give you.
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — EWW scores higher: 57.5 (Grade C) versus 34.6 for MCHI. That doesn't make MCHI a bad fund; it means EWW currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Head-to-Head: Every Metric
| EWW | MCHI | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Single Country - Emerging | Single Country - Emerging |
| Expense ratio | 0.50% | 0.59% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $1.8B | $5.9B |
| Dividend yield | 1.17% | 2.14% |
| 1-year return | +29.04% | -8.29% |
| 3-year return | +29.00% | +15.57% |
| Volatility | 22.00% | 20.53% |
| Max drawdown | -31.17% | -25.85% |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.09 | -0.65 |
| ETFValuer score | 57.5 | 34.6 |
| Grade | C | F |
| Overall rank | #286 | #435 |
Bold marks the better value in each row. "Better" is directional only (e.g. lower cost, higher return) — it isn't a recommendation by itself. See the full methodology.
Cost
EWW is the cheaper fund, charging 0.50% a year versus 0.59% for MCHI — a gap of 0.09 percentage points (about $9.00/year on a $10,000 position) that compounds meaningfully over a multi-decade holding period. See the ETF Fee Calculator for the exact dollar impact at your investment size and horizon.
What MCHI's Fees Cost You
MCHI charges an expense ratio of 0.59% a year, deducted automatically from the fund's value. Small percentages compound into real money — adjust the figures below to see the impact on your own numbers.
Assumes a constant gross return and no additional contributions — a simplification, but it isolates exactly what the expense ratio costs. Try the full fee calculator to model contributions and compare any two funds.
Performance & Risk
Over the trailing 3 years, EWW returned +29.00% versus +15.57% for MCHI — a gap of about 13.4 percentage points. On risk, MCHI has held up better historically, with a shallower max drawdown (-25.85% vs. -31.17%). EWW currently has the better risk-adjusted return (Sharpe ratio of 1.09 vs. -0.65), meaning it delivered more return per unit of volatility taken on.
How Closely Do They Track Each Other?
Over the last 3.0 years of daily returns (752 shared trading days), EWW and MCHI show a low correlation of 0.434 — largely independent of each other. These funds move largely on their own schedules. Combining them is a real diversification decision rather than a redundant one, which is the case where owning both can genuinely reduce portfolio volatility.
| Measure | Value | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Daily return correlation | 0.434 | Low — largely independent of each other |
| R-squared | 18.9% | 18.9% of EWW's daily moves are explained by MCHI's |
| Tracking error (annualised) | 27.10% | Typical yearly spread between the two funds' returns |
| Annualised return over 3.0y | EWW +9.82% · MCHI +7.04% | EWW ahead by 2.77 points a year |
Correlation alone understates how far these can drift. Across every rolling 12-month window in the period, EWW finished as much as +54.1 points ahead of MCHI at the best extreme and -68.9 points at the worst — a 123.0-point spread between the best and worst year of relative performance. Two funds can correlate tightly day to day and still deliver very different outcomes over any single year you happen to hold them.
Calculated from daily total returns over the trailing 3-year window, recomputed every day this site refreshes. Correlation of 1.00 means the two funds moved in lockstep; 0.00 means their daily moves were unrelated.
Holdings Overlap
EWW and MCHI share no companies among their top 10 reported holdings. That points to genuinely different exposure, so holding both is more likely to diversify than to duplicate. Full portfolios may still overlap further down the list.
Based on the top 10 holdings in each fund's most recent SEC N-PORT-P filing.
Which One Should You Pick?
Lean EWW if…
- You want the lower running cost — 0.50% vs 0.59%, about $9 a year less on a $10,000 position
- You care about return per unit of risk — its Sharpe ratio of 1.09 beats -0.65
- You weight recent results heavily — it returned 29.0% over 3 years against 15.6%
Lean MCHI if…
- Current income matters to you — it yields 2.14% against 1.17%
- You want the deeper, more liquid market ($6B in assets vs $2B) and the tighter spread (0.319% vs 4.723%)
Whichever you pick, holding both at full weight is usually the wrong answer — see the overlap and correlation sections above.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is EWW or MCHI better?
On ETFValuer's overall model — which blends return, risk-adjusted performance, cost, drawdown, size and volatility — EWW scores higher: 57.5 (Grade C) versus 34.6 for MCHI. That doesn't make MCHI a bad fund; it means EWW currently edges it out on this specific mix of factors. Read the metric-by-metric breakdown below before deciding which matters more for your own portfolio.
Which has the lower expense ratio, EWW or MCHI?
EWW currently has the lower expense ratio (0.50% vs. 0.59%).
Can I hold both EWW and MCHI?
Yes, and it may be worth doing. EWW and MCHI correlate at only 0.43 over the past 3.0 years, so they behave differently enough that holding both is a genuine diversification decision rather than a redundant one. Size each to the role you want it to play.
Go deeper on either fund
Full daily-updated metrics, holdings context, and category peers.