DEV Community: Cui Kevin

CSI 300 vs CSI 500: A 16-Year DCA Backtest (China A-Shares)

Cui Kevin — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 02:14:13 +0000

CSI 300 vs CSI 500: A 16-Year DCA Backtest (China A-Shares)

If you invest in China A-shares through dollar-cost averaging, the first question is usually: large cap or mid cap?

CSI 300 and CSI 500 are the two most commonly compared broad indices in mainland China. This post walks through a 16-year backtest of both, with real numbers.

Two indices, two different beasts

CSI 300 tracks the 300 largest companies by market cap on the Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges. Banks, insurance, liquor, home appliances, oil. Mature industry leaders with stable earnings and high dividends. Low growth potential, low volatility.

CSI 500 tracks companies ranked 301 to 800 by market cap. Pharmaceuticals, electronics, chemicals, machinery. Growth companies in niche industries. High elasticity, higher volatility.

One is the bedrock of China's economy. The other is its waist. This shapes everything about their returns and risk profiles.

Backtest setup

Item	Value
Assets	CSI 300 (000300.SH) vs CSI 500 (000905.SH)
Period	2010-01-01 – 2026-08-31
Frequency	Monthly
Amount	1,000 CNY per contribution
Total contributions	199
Total invested	¥199,000
Dividends	Excluded
Fees	Excluded

The 2010 start captures the 2015 crash, the 2018 bear market, the 2019–2021 structural bull, the 2022 correction, and the 2023–2026 consolidation.

You can run the same backtest yourself:

The results

Metric	CSI 300	CSI 500
DCA return	38.41%	53.52%
Total gains	¥76,444.62	¥106,497.30
Total invested	¥199,000.00	¥199,000.00
Final value	¥275,444.62	¥305,497.30
Annualized return	3.86%	5.02%
Contributions	199	199
Shares held	58.58	38.04
Max drawdown	-39.35%	-46.13%

Same monthly amount, same number of contributions, meaningfully different outcomes.

Return side:

CSI 500's annualized return of 5.02% is 1.16 percentage points higher than CSI 300's 3.86%
Over 16 years, that gap compounds into about ¥30,000 more in final assets

Risk side:

CSI 500's max drawdown is 6.78 percentage points deeper than CSI 300's
During the 2015 crash or 2018 bear market, CSI 500 investors saw their accounts drop over 46% from peak

15 points more return. 7 points more drawdown. That's the trade.

Why CSI 500 returns more but draws down deeper

This is the key to understanding the difference.

CSI 300's constituents are industry leaders — Moutai, Wuliangye, China Merchants Bank, Ping An, CATL. Stable earnings, strong cash flow, high dividends. In bear markets, low valuations and high dividends limit the downside.

CSI 500's constituents are growth companies in niche industries. Not sector leaders yet, but catching up. In bull markets, their earnings elasticity is high and their stock prices rise faster. In bear markets, their valuations contract more sharply.

High elasticity cuts both ways. CSI 500 beat CSI 300 by about 15 points over 16 years. The cost was deeper drawdowns every time the market turned.

How the two performed across market cycles

Phase	Winner	Why
2010–2014 (sideways decline)	CSI 300	Lower valuations, smaller drawdown
2015 (leverage bull + crash)	Extreme for both	CSI 500 rose more, then fell harder
2016–2018 (value return + bear)	CSI 300	Foreign capital pushed blue chips higher
2019–2021 (structural bull)	CSI 500	Growth stocks dominated
2022–2026 (consolidation)	CSI 500	Lower valuation, better rebound

Long-term verdict: CSI 500 won during growth-stock periods but required enduring deeper drawdowns each time.

The conclusion

If you…	Better fit
Can tolerate -45%+ account drawdowns	CSI 500
Get anxious when the account drops 35%	CSI 300
Chase higher long-term returns	CSI 500
Prefer a smoother holding experience	CSI 300
Believe in China's growth-stock story	CSI 500
Prefer blue chips and dividends	CSI 300
Have a 10+ year horizon	CSI 500
Have a 3–5 year horizon	CSI 300

The two aren't mutually exclusive. A common split is 70% CSI 300 + 30% CSI 500. Keeps the stability of blue chips, captures some growth elasticity.

In one sentence: CSI 500 offers higher returns, but you pay for it with the ability to hold on through deeper drawdowns.

FAQ

Q: CSI 500 has higher long-term returns. Why not go all-in?

A: Because returns are only obvious in hindsight. Anyone buying CSI 500 in 2015 had no idea the crash was coming. If your horizon isn't long enough, or you sell during a deep drawdown, you never capture the high return.

Q: Can DCA smooth out CSI 500's volatility?

A: Partially. CSI 500's max drawdown was -46.13% vs CSI 300's -39.35%. DCA lowers average cost, but the account still shows a loss during bear markets.

Q: Which is better for beginners?

A: CSI 300. The biggest risk for a beginner isn't picking the wrong index — it's quitting during the first major drawdown. CSI 300's lower volatility and higher dividends make it more forgiving.

Q: Can I DCA into both?

A: Yes. A common split is 70% CSI 300 + 30% CSI 500. The right ratio depends on how much account volatility you can accept.

Q: Can I run the backtest myself?

A: Yes. Use the pre-filled parameters: Run the CSI 300 backtest, Run the CSI 500 backtest. All parameters are pre-filled.

Data for reference only. Not investment advice.

👉 Run the same backtest on DCA Guide

DCA Into Nasdaq 100 at the 2000 Dot-Com Peak: A 26-Year Backtest

Cui Kevin — Sat, 03 Oct 2026 07:59:22 +0000

DCA Into Nasdaq 100 at the 2000 Dot-Com Peak: A 26-Year Backtest

What happens if you start dollar-cost averaging (DCA) into the Nasdaq-100 at the worst possible moment—the peak of the dot-com bubble in March 2000?

Most people assume it would be a disaster. The data says otherwise.

The backtest setup

I ran a DCA backtest on QQQ (Nasdaq-100 ETF) with the following parameters:

Asset: QQQ
Period: March 1, 2000 – August 31, 2026
Frequency: Monthly
Amount: $1,000 per contribution
Strategy: Regular DCA (fixed amount)
Initial lump sum: $0
Dividends: Excluded
Fees: Excluded

The starting point is deliberate—March 2000 is the single worst entry point in Nasdaq-100 history. If DCA can survive this, it can survive almost anything.

The results

Metric	Value
Total Invested	$318,000.00
Final Value	$1,943,131.91
Total Return	511.05%
Annualized Return	11.77%
Maximum Drawdown	40.11%

Even starting from the absolute peak of the dot-com bubble, 26 years of consistent DCA produced a 5.1x return on invested capital.

Why the 2000 peak was so brutal

From March 2000 to October 2002, the Nasdaq-100 fell 82.9%—from 5,048 to 1,114 in just 19 months.

Metric	Value
Bubble peak	March 24, 2000 — 4,816 (closing)
Trough	October 2002 — 1,114
Max drawdown	-82.9%
Decline duration	~19 months
Recovery to peak	~15 years (back to 2000 level in 2015)

If you had invested a lump sum in March 2000, you would have lost 82.9% of your capital and waited until 2015 to break even. That's 15 years of waiting.

This is why starting DCA at the 2000 peak is the ultimate stress test.

How DCA changed the outcome

The equity curve shows cumulative invested capital rising in a straight line, while portfolio value stayed below total invested for years during 2000–2002. At the worst point, the account was down 40.11%.

But DCA's "buy more when low" mechanism kept working. As the Nasdaq fell 82.9%, each monthly contribution bought more shares at extremely low prices. Those cheap shares paid off during the recovery.

By 2026, the account had not only recovered but delivered a 511.05% total return.

DCA vs. lump sum: the real difference

	Lump sum (March 2000)	DCA (March 2000 – Aug 2026)
Break-even time	~15 years (2015)	Positive return within ~10 years
Max drawdown	-82.9%	-40.11% (account level)
Final outcome	Break-even, then gains	$1.94M on $318K invested

DCA shortened the break-even period from 15 years to roughly 10 years and cut the maximum account drawdown in half.

Comparison with S&P 500

If you had started DCA into the S&P 500 (SPY) in March 2000, the ride would have been smoother.

Dimension	S&P 500	Nasdaq-100
Bubble max drawdown	~-49%	-82.9%
Recovery time	~7 years	~15 years
Volatility	Moderate	Extreme
DCA experience	Manageable losses	Severe psychological test

The Nasdaq-100's decline was 1.7x deeper than the S&P 500's, and its recovery took more than twice as long. Starting DCA into the Nasdaq at the 2000 peak required enduring years of deeper losses and far greater psychological stress.

How long does "long-term" actually mean?

This is the core question.

Starting DCA into the Nasdaq-100 from the 2000 peak, "turning positive" and "truly breaking even" are two different things:

Turning positive: cumulative return becomes positive.
Truly breaking even: total account value exceeds total invested capital.

Some backtests show that starting daily DCA of $50 into the Nasdaq from the 2000 peak, the account turns positive in under 4 years. If you DCA for 10 years from the 2000 peak, the final return is roughly +30%.

But if you had invested a lump sum in 2000, you would have waited until 2015 to break even—15 years.

This is the biggest difference between DCA and lump-sum investing: DCA uses continuous contributions to average down cost, shortening "15 years to break even" into "positive returns within 10 years."

One-line summary

Nasdaq-100 DCA, even starting from the historic peak of the 2000 dot-com bubble, after 26 years of consistent investing, still recovered and turned a profit: total return 511.05%, annualized 11.77%, maximum drawdown 40.11%.

Data for reference only. Not investment advice.

👉 Run the same backtest yourself on DCA Guide