In 2025, the three main characteristics of fund winners
```
In 2025, China’s active equity fund market underwent a genuine “re-pricing of capabilities”: over 90% of products delivered positive returns, median returns approached 30%, and leading products even exceeded 200%. However, differentiation was more important than returns themselves—this was not a year where “everyone made money,” but rather “who, at the right time and with the right approach, made structured profits.”
According to the latest research report from Shenwan Hongyuan, from the perspective of fund evaluation, 2025 showed three major core changes: track selection once again dominated annual rankings, portfolio adjustment rhythm became more crucial than long-term style, and high-turnover, strongly active funds regained an edge. Behind these changes was a typical “N-shaped structural market” in A-shares: a breakout for tech, innovative pharmaceuticals, new consumption, and Hong Kong stocks themes at the beginning of the year; risk rapidly released amid intensified external shocks in Q2; and the market rebounded in the second half under policy expectations and medium- to long-term funds.
Return disparities were huge at the industry level. Non-ferrous metals, communications, and electronics led gains throughout the year; non-ferrous metals topped the chart with a 94.73% increase, communications outperformed for the third consecutive year with 84.75%. Meanwhile, food and beverage fell by 9.69%; the gap between top and bottom industries reached 104.43%. This led to a direct outcome: in 2025, whether a fund “allocated heavily to the right track” almost entirely decided its annual ranking range.
For investors, 2025 validated the value of active management, but also highlighted the importance of timing in track selection. Of the products that performed well in the first half, 31% fell into the bottom 20% in the second half—reminding investors to focus on fund managers’ flexibility in portfolio adjustments rather than simply “canonizing” or “eliminating” a fund based on full-year rankings.
Logic of Evaluation Restructured: From Track Dividend to Capability Differentiation
2025 marked a fundamental shift in fund evaluation logic. If 2022 to 2024 was a “trust repair period” for active equity funds, then 2025 was a genuine year of re-pricing capabilities.
The Wind All A Index rose 27.65% for the year, CSI 300 by 17.66%. 29 out of 31 Shenwan primary industries achieved positive returns; but the market did not feature a singularly dominant style, instead providing plenty of track choices. Active equity funds as a whole saw a notable recovery in profitability: 96.85% of products generated positive returns, with a median yield of 29.81%.
The report notes that true differentiation came from track beta. Statistically, high-turnover funds saw significantly higher average annual returns than low-turnover ones; funds ranked highly in H1 saw visible drops in H2—”champion’s curse” still existed, but no longer as a simple mean reversion, instead driven by track misalignment. This means 2025 was not suitable for evaluating “long-term capabilities” based solely on one year’s return, but was very useful for judging managers' trading and adaptability.
At the fund company level, capability differentiation started to show. Among companies with active equity AUM over 10 billion RMB, Yongying Fund, AVIC Fund, Caitong Fund, Huashang Fund stood out, all with arithmetic average performance exceeding 50%. Yongying Fund averaged 56.76%; its Yongying Technology Smart Select fund returned 233.29%. Rarely did companies maintain leading performance in all four quarters—Huashang Fund and Baoying Fund managed relatively balanced performance. Some smaller companies showed explosive power on single tracks; while platform companies, despite comprehensive product lines, lacked standout single-product superiority.
Market Structure Determines Ranking: Industry Return Differences Reach Record Highs
2025 saw highly typical market structure features in A-shares, forming the underlying context that determined fund performance. Early in the year, tech, innovative pharma, new consumption, and Hong Kong stock themes broke out comprehensively; Q2 brought intensified external disturbance and rapid risk release; H2 saw the market rebound on policy expectation and medium/long-term investment.
The gaps in industry and theme returns were tremendous:
In terms of style, the large-cap growth index surged 37.88% for the year, while the ChiNext index boomed 69.36%, ranking as the top broad-based index.
Electronic and electrical equipment industries, heavily held by active equity funds, rose 47.88% and 41.83% respectively, contributing significant returns. Banking and non-bank finance, leaders in 2024, fell into relative disadvantage in 2025. Non-ferrous metals, long lagging for the past three years, emerged as the top industry due to strong precious metals performance.
This structural feature was directly reflected in the common attributes of top-performing funds. Analysis of leading funds in 2025 revealed most were technology-themed, gaining excess returns via industry allocation.
In terms of return contribution, communications and electronics far outpaced other areas as key sources for top products. For instance, Yongying Technology Smart Select earned 25.23% from industry allocation and 180.56% from stock selection; AVIC Opportunity Pioneer earned 23.84% from allocation, 150.29% from stock selection.
Key Tracks and Rhythm: The Two Dimensions for Victory
The report highlights that for standout active equity funds in 2025, the critical factors were twofold: capturing key tracks, and accuracy in portfolio adjustment rhythm.
Five main track/theme opportunities emerged in turn. Precious metals provided a stable opportunity throughout the year; the Wind Precious Metal Index gained over 111% for the year. Fund managers Ye Yong, Li Xiaohua, Wu Guoqing, Liu Wenzhe effectively seized this trend—Li Xiaohua at Huafu Yongxin Fund maintained 100% precious metal allocation for a 89.79% annual return. This exemplified the victory of “macro understanding plus portfolio execution,” suitable for evaluating a manager’s persistence with long-term logic.
Innovative pharmaceuticals underwent a classic “valuation repair plus crowded trade” process in the first three quarters; CSI Hong Kong Connect Innovative Pharma Index soared 118.52%. Managers such as Zheng Ning, Sang Xiangyu, Liang Furui, Jin Xiaofei rode this wave—BOC Hong Kong Connect Pharma Fund returned 126.55% in Q1-Q3. But differentiation hinged not on whether to buy, but “when to sell.” Zheng Ning and Jin Xiaofei, who pared back innovative pharma holdings in Q3, performed better across the full year; while stubborn “perma-bulls” saw their annual rankings drop.
New consumption and HK Connect consumption were classic first-half dividends. Led by Pop Mart and Laopu Gold, new consumption stocks surged 198% and 322% in H1 but declined in H2. Managers Fu Juan, Song Jialing, Wu Yuanyi seized H1 opportunities; notably, Wu Yuanyi substantially cut holdings in Q3, delivering a 60.22% annual return. This shows that “track funds” are not automatically “good funds”—evaluation must consider “phase win rate.”
AI computing power was not a year-long trend, but concentrated its main gains in Q3—CSI Computing Power Index surged 82.20% that quarter. Managers Ren Jie, Wang Haoyu, Han Hao, Jiang Shan swiftly increased positions in this phase; Yongying Technology Smart Select returned 99.74% in Q3. New energy came roaring back Sep–mid-Nov, CSI New Energy Index gained 33.65%. Managers Huang Qianyi, Yao Zhipeng, Zheng Chengran benefited notably; Taixin Modern Services Fund returned 59.25% in that period.
The importance of rhythm was especially pronounced in 2025. Long-term style labels explained much less than the adjustment rhythm. High-turnover funds saw much stronger returns than low-turnover funds; top H1 performers dropped sharply in H2. Funds that could switch among multiple tracks and control drawdowns deserved core positions. This year’s high returns must be understood in terms of rhythm—otherwise, they’re not replicable.
Market Rebound Signal: New Fund Issuance Scale and Investor Preference
2025’s restored market confidence was evident in the bounce-back of new fund issuance. 334 new active equity funds launched, totaling 161.898 billion RMB—an obvious rebound from 2024, ending the multi-year post-2022 decline. 12 new products exceeded 2 billion RMB at launch, with CMB Balanced Selection Fund topping with 4.955 billion RMB.
Among custodians, CMB led in product count and launch scale: 52 products, totaling 29.091 billion RMB. Among fund companies, E Fund issued the most new funds by scale at 12.001 billion RMB. By Q3, net subscriptions were highest for Yongying Advanced Manufacturing Smart Select, China-Europe Digital Economy, both exceeding 9 billion RMB.
New-generation fund managers emerged. 2025 saw a batch of standout new managers, like Lin Dan and Ren Jie focusing on popular tracks; Ke Zheng and Yu Yi for balanced approaches; and Kong Xianzheng and Liu Weiming for quant styles. Among mid-career and veteran managers, Liu Yuanhai, Zou Lihu, Li Yin maintained strong results in recent years; Guo Weiling, Liu Jianwei, Hu Zhongyuan stayed among the top in 2025.
In summary, 2025 was a highly “suitable year for fund evaluation”: the market offered enough track choices, lacked a one-sided dominant style, and managers’ “judgment–execution–adjustment” process was fully exposed.
Shenwan Hongyuan says investors shouldn’t simply “canonize” or “eliminate” a fund based on 2025 rankings. High-return products are best used as capability samples—not as mindless long-term allocations. Funds able to switch among tracks and control drawdowns deserve core portfolio status. Looking ahead to 2026, it’s suggested to seek offensive opportunities while maintaining defensive discipline, build diversified portfolios across multiple tracks to enhance risk resistance, selectively allocate focus based on phases, and avoid concentrated right-side allocations that may lead to drawdown risks.
Risk Warning and DisclaimerThe market involves risks, and investment requires caution. This article does not constitute individual investment advice and does not take into account the unique investment objectives, financial condition, or needs of any particular user. Users should consider whether any opinions, perspectives, or conclusions herein suit their own situation. Investment based on this is at your own risk. ```