What Moves Like YUMC

Yum China Holdings, Inc. Retail-Eating Places · NYSE

The tradable tickers whose daily moves track YUMC most closely over the past year, filtered to risk comparable with YUMC's own.

Closest match

FXI iShares China Large-Cap ETF — 0.390 correlation over the past year, and 22% calmer than YUMC.

251 sessions to 2026-09-10 · YUMC volatility 25.2% annualised · $68.0M a day
Ticker 1-year correlation 3-year Volatility vs YUMC Risk What it is
FXI iShares China Large-Cap ETF
0.390
0.553 0.78× 22% calmer Fund
HTHT H World Group Limited
0.369
0.518 1.28× 28% choppier Hotels & Motels
KWEB KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF
0.357
0.562 1.09× similar Fund
MNSO MINISO Group Holding Limited American Preferred
0.352
0.298 1.44× 44% choppier Retail-Variety Stores
MCHI iShares MSCI China ETF
0.344
0.550 0.79× 21% calmer Fund
VIPS Vipshop Holdings Limited American Preferred
0.343
0.456 1.29× 29% choppier Retail-Catalog & Mail-Order Houses
EMQQ EMQQ The Emerging Markets Internet ETF
0.338
0.495 0.84× 16% calmer Fund
WYNN Wynn Resorts, Limited
0.337
0.397 1.34× 34% choppier Hotels & Motels
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF
0.337
0.548 0.75× 25% calmer Fund
BEKE KE Holdings Inc American Preferred
0.325
0.479 1.48× 48% choppier Real Estate Agents & Managers (For Others)
JD JD.com, Inc.
0.324
0.471 1.28× 28% choppier Retail-Retail Stores, Nec
RXI iShares Global Consumer Discretionary ETF
0.317
0.391 0.68× 32% calmer Fund
TCOM Trip.com Group Limited
0.313
0.464 1.38× 38% choppier Services-Business Services, Nec
RSPD Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Consumer Discretionary ETF
0.309
0.347 0.74× 26% calmer Fund
YUM Yum! Brands, Inc.
0.308
0.357 0.95× similar Retail-Eating Places
ATAT Atour Lifestyle Holdings Limited
0.303
0.368 1.55× 55% choppier Hotels & Motels

Showing 16 of 16 tickers that qualified. Correlation is of daily returns; 1.000 would mean moving in lockstep, 0.000 no relationship at all.

What this is for

Three questions, one number behind all of them.

How to read the two correlation columns

The one-year figure is what the relationship looks like now. The three-year figure is what it has looked like over a longer stretch. Comparing them is the point: when they agree, the relationship is structural and likely to hold. When the one-year number is far below the three-year one, something has changed — a shift in business mix, an index reconstitution, a sector that has stopped moving together — and the recent figure is the one to trust less, not more.

Correlation measures whether two things move together, not whether they move by the same amount. That is why the volatility column is there. Two tickers can correlate at 0.99 while one swings half again as hard, and swapping one for the other would quietly change how much risk you are carrying.

What was deliberately left out

Ranking purely by correlation produces answers that are mathematically perfect and practically useless. The closest matches to AAPL by raw correlation are leveraged AAPL funds at 0.999 — correct, and not replacements for anything. Four filters run before a ticker is allowed to appear:

Where all of that leaves a ticker with no close match, the page says so. A stock with no substitute is a real and useful finding, and inventing a loose one to fill the table would be worse than an empty answer.

Limits, stated up front

Where the numbers come from

Correlations are computed in-house from a daily price history and rebuilt every night. What gets published is the derived statistic — a correlation coefficient, a volatility ratio, an observation count — and nothing from which a price or return series could be reconstructed. The rest of the Markets section is on the Markets overview, including futures positioning extremes and SEC Form 4 insider transactions.