PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ASHS vs. CQQQ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ASHS vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers Harvest CSI 500 China A-Shares Small Cap ETF (ASHS) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ASHS achieves a 15.10% return, which is significantly higher than CQQQ's 2.46% return. Over the past 10 years, ASHS has underperformed CQQQ with an annualized return of 3.27%, while CQQQ has yielded a comparatively higher 5.40% annualized return.


ASHS

1D
-0.17%
1M
-0.19%
YTD
15.10%
6M
23.90%
1Y
57.65%
3Y*
13.41%
5Y*
3.97%
10Y*
3.27%

CQQQ

1D
-1.50%
1M
4.43%
YTD
2.46%
6M
5.43%
1Y
32.76%
3Y*
10.55%
5Y*
-7.50%
10Y*
5.40%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ASHS vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ASHS
Xtrackers Harvest CSI 500 China A-Shares Small Cap ETF
15.10%39.48%2.68%-10.03%-24.78%17.66%28.22%24.53%-35.91%7.90%
CQQQ
Invesco China Technology ETF
2.46%34.96%9.84%-16.71%-30.09%-24.54%57.33%33.57%-34.77%74.31%

Correlation

The correlation between ASHS and CQQQ is 0.78, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.78

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.80

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.73

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.69

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 22, 2014

0.66

The correlation between ASHS and CQQQ shifts across timeframes, from 0.66 (all time) to 0.80 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ASHS vs. CQQQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ASHS
CQQQ

Technology

29.8%
58.2%

Industrials

19.7%
1.3%

Basic Materials

19.4%
0.1%

Healthcare

7.2%

-

Financial Services

6.3%
0.1%

Consumer Cyclical

5.8%
13.8%

Energy

3.2%

-

Communication Services

3.2%
21.9%

Consumer Defensive

2.6%

-

Utilities

2.2%

-

Real Estate

0.7%

-

Technology

ASHS
29.8%
CQQQ
58.2%

Industrials

ASHS
19.7%
CQQQ
1.3%

Basic Materials

ASHS
19.4%
CQQQ
0.1%

Healthcare

ASHS
7.2%
CQQQ

-

Financial Services

ASHS
6.3%
CQQQ
0.1%

Consumer Cyclical

ASHS
5.8%
CQQQ
13.8%

Energy

ASHS
3.2%
CQQQ

-

Communication Services

ASHS
3.2%
CQQQ
21.9%

Consumer Defensive

ASHS
2.6%
CQQQ

-

Utilities

ASHS
2.2%
CQQQ

-

Real Estate

ASHS
0.7%
CQQQ

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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


Return for Risk

ASHS vs. CQQQ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ASHS
ASHS Risk / Return Rank: 7474
Overall Rank
ASHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7878
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ASHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
ASHS Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
ASHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
ASHS Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
Martin Ratio Rank

CQQQ
CQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 2828
Overall Rank
CQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3030
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 3131
Sortino Ratio Rank
CQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 3030
Omega Ratio Rank
CQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 2727
Calmar Ratio Rank
CQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

ASHS vs. CQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers Harvest CSI 500 China A-Shares Small Cap ETF (ASHS) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ). 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.


ASHSCQQQDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.57

1.11

+1.46

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

3.27

1.68

+1.58

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.42

1.20

+0.22

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

4.13

1.35

+2.78

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

13.72

3.16

+10.56

ASHS vs. CQQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ASHS Sharpe Ratio is 2.57, which is higher than the CQQQ Sharpe Ratio of 1.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ASHS and CQQQ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


ASHSCQQQDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.57

1.11

+1.46

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.15

-0.20

+0.35

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.13

0.16

-0.03

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.19

0.19

0.00

Drawdowns

ASHS vs. CQQQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ASHS drawdown since its inception was -69.90%, smaller than the maximum CQQQ drawdown of -73.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ASHS and CQQQ.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ASHSCQQQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-69.90%

-73.99%

+4.09%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.03%

-24.41%

+10.38%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-34.13%

-35.93%

+1.80%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-47.81%

-66.96%

+19.15%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-47.81%

-73.99%

+26.18%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-33.57%

-49.18%

+15.61%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-48.57%

-28.29%

-20.28%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.21%

10.39%

-6.18%

Volatility

ASHS vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers Harvest CSI 500 China A-Shares Small Cap ETF (ASHS) is 7.33%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 11.60%. This indicates that ASHS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CQQQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ASHSCQQQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.33%

11.60%

-4.27%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.00%

21.88%

-4.88%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

22.59%

29.78%

-7.19%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

26.46%

38.02%

-11.56%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.57%

33.30%

-7.73%

ASHS vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

ASHS has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than CQQQ's 0.70% expense ratio.


Dividends

ASHS vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison

ASHS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CQQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.11%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ASHS
Xtrackers Harvest CSI 500 China A-Shares Small Cap ETF
0.00%0.00%0.69%0.65%1.90%0.76%0.43%0.57%0.00%0.00%0.00%8.34%
CQQQ
Invesco China Technology ETF
2.11%2.17%0.28%0.55%0.08%0.00%0.47%0.01%0.43%1.41%1.69%1.77%

Frequently Asked Questions


ASHS and CQQQ have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CQQQ has higher volatility (11.60%) compared to ASHS (7.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ASHS dropped -69.90% vs CQQQ's -73.99%.

On 10-year performance, CQQQ leads with 5.40% vs 3.27% for ASHS. On fees, ASHS is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, ASHS has been the lower-risk option at 7.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, CQQQ has performed better with a 5.40% return vs 3.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ASHS is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for CQQQ.

CQQQ has the higher dividend yield at 2.11%, compared with 0.00% for ASHS.

ASHS tracks CSI 500 Index, while CQQQ tracks AlphaShares China Technology Index. They also come from different issuers: Deutsche Bank and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for ASHS and 0.70% for CQQQ.

ASHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.57 vs 1.11), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ASHS and CQQQ

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer