PortfoliosLab logo
PortfoliosLab logo
Tools
Portfolios
Screeners
Discussions
AACFX vs. PGJ
Performance
Risk-Adjusted Performance
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility

AACFX vs. PGJ

Last updated May 18, 2025

Compare and contrast key facts about Invesco Greater China Fund (AACFX) and Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ).

AACFX is managed by Invesco. It was launched on Mar 30, 2006. PGJ is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the Halter USX China Index. It was launched on Dec 9, 2004.

Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: AACFX or PGJ.

Correlation

The correlation between AACFX and PGJ is 0.56, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Performance

AACFX vs. PGJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Greater China Fund (AACFX) and Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading data...

Key characteristics

Returns By Period

AACFX

YTD

N/A

1M

N/A

6M

N/A

1Y

N/A

5Y*

N/A

10Y*

N/A

PGJ

YTD

10.20%

1M

13.99%

6M

14.68%

1Y

7.69%

5Y*

-6.34%

10Y*

-0.18%

*Annualized

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

AACFX vs. PGJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

AACFX has a 1.55% expense ratio, which is higher than PGJ's 0.70% expense ratio.

AACFX
Invesco Greater China Fund
PGJ
Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF

Risk-Adjusted Performance

AACFX vs. PGJ — Risk-Adjusted Performance Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
AACFX
The Risk-Adjusted Performance Rank of AACFX is 5353
Overall Rank
The Sharpe Ratio Rank of AACFX is 5757
Sharpe Ratio Rank
The Sortino Ratio Rank of AACFX is 6262
Sortino Ratio Rank
The Omega Ratio Rank of AACFX is 6464
Omega Ratio Rank
The Calmar Ratio Rank of AACFX is 4242
Calmar Ratio Rank
The Martin Ratio Rank of AACFX is 4040
Martin Ratio Rank
PGJ
The Risk-Adjusted Performance Rank of PGJ is 3030
Overall Rank
The Sharpe Ratio Rank of PGJ is 2626
Sharpe Ratio Rank
The Sortino Ratio Rank of PGJ is 3939
Sortino Ratio Rank
The Omega Ratio Rank of PGJ is 3434
Omega Ratio Rank
The Calmar Ratio Rank of PGJ is 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
The Martin Ratio Rank of PGJ is 2727
Martin Ratio Rank
The risk-adjusted ranks indicate the investment's position relative to the market. A rank closer to 100 signifies top-performing investments, while a rank closer to 0 might suggest underperformance, based on the selected ratio. The values are calculated based on the past 12 months of returns.

AACFX vs. PGJ - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Greater China Fund (AACFX) and Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Loading data...

Dividends

AACFX vs. PGJ - Dividend Comparison

AACFX has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PGJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.53%.

TTM20242023202220212020201920182017201620152014
AACFX
Invesco Greater China Fund		1.28%1.10%1.94%1.62%0.06%0.51%1.04%1.04%0.54%0.73%1.07%0.45%
PGJ
Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF		4.53%4.70%2.50%0.84%0.00%0.30%0.17%0.31%2.05%1.94%0.37%0.89%

Drawdowns

AACFX vs. PGJ - Drawdown Comparison

Loading data...

Volatility

AACFX vs. PGJ - Volatility Comparison

Loading data...