ASHR vs VEA ETF Comparison
Compare ASHR and VEA across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between ASHR and VEA?
ASHR is Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF, while VEA is Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF. ASHR is tied to Equity; VEA is tied to International Equity. VEA is broader by holdings count, with 3,831 positions versus 282 for ASHR. ASHR is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight.
| Metric | ASHR | VEA | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 0.03% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $1.5B | $315.0B | Fund |
| Holdings | 282 | 3,831 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 46.9% | 14.5% | Fund |
| Average volume | 3,499,437 | 14,071,293 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Equity | International Equity | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 19.4% | 17.4% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -9.8% | -11.8% | Risk |
| Beta | 0.77 | 1.08 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.29 | 1.19 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 0.44 | 1.72 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 54/100 | 67/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 6/10 | 10/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 34/100 | 60/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 72/100 | 84/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF vs Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF
VEA leads
VEA leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality.
Competitive: 3 of 4 evidence groups support VEA, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF
Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VEA over ASHR, 67 versus 54 as of Sep 5, 2026. VEA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while ASHR holds the stronger value profile. VEA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VEA today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. VEA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF and Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare ASHR and VEA against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Momentum25%34 vs 60VEA +26
- Quality30%58 vs 77VEA +19
- Risk Resilience15%72 vs 84VEA +12
- Value30%59 vs 54ASHR +5
3 of 4 evidence groups favor VEA. VEA’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; ASHR keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No new signals fired.
VEA's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ASHR and VEA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VEA (Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
ASHR (Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
VEAVEA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
ASHRASHR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
VEAVEA on the Momentum factor, by 26 points.
Lower downside
VEAVEA on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | ASHR | VEA | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.65% | 0.03% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $1.5B | $315.0B | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 286 | 3,873 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 3,499,437 | 14,071,293 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 19.4% | 17.4% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -9.8% | -11.8% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.29 | 1.19 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | 0.77 | 1.08 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
ASHR and VEA share 0% of their weighted exposure across 0 common holdings.
ASHR is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 46.87% of the fund, against 14.46% for VEA (282 holdings vs 3831). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
282 holdings are unique to ASHR and 3831 to VEA. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, ASHR or VEA?
VEA currently has more reported holdings, with 3,831 positions versus 282.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
VEA has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
ASHR has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
ASHR has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
VEA currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 67 to 54.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor VEA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VEA | 54 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | ASHR | Value 59 vs 54 |
| Technicals | VEA | Price vs 50-day -1.7% vs 3%; vs 200-day -0.3% vs 8.4% |
| Risk Resilience | VEA | Risk Resilience 72 vs 84 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ASHR and VEA and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on VEA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3VEA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VEA +13
- 54 vs 67
- 7 sessions ago
- VEA +12
- 56 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- VEA +13
- 58 vs 71
- 90 sessions ago
- VEA +5
- 62 vs 67
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.78%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.03%)
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.66%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
VEA leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.38%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.44%, AIQ +2 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1ASHR closes the Momentum gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to VEA's edge.
- 2ASHR's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3VEA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Technicals
VEA has the stronger structure| Metric | ASHR | VEA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.8 | 48.9 |
| ADX (14) | 9.6 | 12.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.7% | 3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.3% | 8.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.2% | 12.1% |
Risk
VEA is the more resilient| Metric | ASHR | VEA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.77 | 1.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.29 | 1.19 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.44 | 1.72 |
| Max drawdown | -9.8% | -11.8% |
| Current drawdown | -8.7% | -0.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.4% | 17.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ASHR or VEA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VEA is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 67 against ASHR's 54. The edge comes from momentum and quality. ASHR is not without a case — it holds the better value profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is ASHR or VEA the better buy right now?
VEA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor VEA over ASHR?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. VEA leads Momentum by 26 points; VEA leads Quality by 19 points; VEA leads Risk Resilience by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, ASHR or VEA?
ASHR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ASHR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, ASHR or VEA?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, ASHR or VEA?
VEA on the Momentum factor, by 26 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, ASHR or VEA?
VEA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VEA on Risk Resilience, by 12 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ASHR more profitable than VEA?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is VEA's lead over ASHR getting stronger or weaker?
VEA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ASHR vs VEA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ASHR closes the Momentum gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to VEA's edge; ASHR's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; VEA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about ASHR and VEA?
ASHR: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. VEA: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on ASHR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On VEA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ASHR and VEA with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.