CGRO vs. CQQQ
CGRO (CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF) and CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) are both China Equities funds. CGRO is actively managed, while CQQQ is passively managed. Over the past year, CGRO returned -11.13% vs 11.40% for CQQQ. Their correlation of 0.84 means they have usually moved in the same direction. CGRO charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for CQQQ.
Performance
CGRO vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGRO achieves a -13.62% return, which is significantly lower than CQQQ's -3.48% return.
CGRO
- 1D
- 1.36%
- 1M
- 12.11%
- 6M
- -12.37%
- YTD
- -13.62%
- 1Y
- -11.13%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 7.17%
CQQQ
- 1D
- -0.22%
- 1M
- -7.04%
- 6M
- -8.51%
- YTD
- -3.48%
- 1Y
- 11.40%
- 3Y*
- 6.47%
- 5Y*
- -6.42%
- 10Y*
- 4.11%
- ALL TIME*
- 5.32%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $6.38K | $9.95K | $35.67K | |
| $59.60M | $63.86M | $78.89M |
CGRO vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF | -13.62% | 20.23% | 14.75% | 1.84% |
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | -3.48% | 34.96% | 9.84% | -0.40% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGRO and CQQQ is 0.76, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.76 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 17, 2023 | 0.84 |
The correlation between CGRO and CQQQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.
CGRO vs. CQQQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CGRO
CQQQ
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Communication Services
Technology
Healthcare
-
Financial Services
Consumer Defensive
-
Real Estate
-
Basic Materials
-
Energy
-
-
Utilities
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
CGRO
CQQQ
Industrials
CGRO
CQQQ
Communication Services
CGRO
CQQQ
Technology
CGRO
CQQQ
Healthcare
CGRO
CQQQ
-
Financial Services
CGRO
CQQQ
Consumer Defensive
CGRO
CQQQ
-
Real Estate
CGRO
CQQQ
-
Basic Materials
CGRO
-
CQQQ
Energy
CGRO
-
CQQQ
-
Utilities
CGRO
-
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
CGRO vs. CQQQ — Risk / Return Rank
CGRO
CQQQ
CGRO vs. CQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| CGRO | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.84 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.28 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.94 | 1.09 | -0.15 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.31 | 0.47 | -0.77 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.58 | 1.01 | -1.59 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CGRO vs. CQQQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGRO drawdown since its inception was -36.53%, smaller than the maximum CQQQ drawdown of -73.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGRO and CQQQ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGRO | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -36.53% | -73.99% | +37.46% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -36.53% | -24.41% | -12.12% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -34.42% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -62.09% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -73.99% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -26.17% | -52.13% | +25.96% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.45% | -28.49% | +17.04% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 19.28% | 11.32% | +7.96% |
Volatility
CGRO vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) is 6.67%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 10.99%. This indicates that CGRO 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
| CGRO | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.67% | 10.99% | -4.32% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 16.63% | 24.73% | -8.10% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.12% | 32.53% | -9.41% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 28.69% | 38.18% | -9.49% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 28.69% | 33.57% | -4.88% |
CGRO vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGRO has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than CQQQ's 0.70% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGRO vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison
CGRO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.24%, more than CQQQ's 2.24% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF | 3.24% | 2.48% | 2.47% | 0.21% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | 2.24% | 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
CGRO and CQQQ have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CQQQ has higher volatility (10.99%) compared to CGRO (6.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGRO dropped -36.53% vs CQQQ's -73.99%.
On 1-year performance, CQQQ leads with 11.40% vs -11.13% for CGRO. On fees, CQQQ is cheaper at 0.70% per year. On volatility, CGRO has been the lower-risk option at 6.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, CQQQ has performed better with a 11.40% return vs -11.13%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CQQQ is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CGRO.
CGRO has the higher dividend yield at 3.24%, compared with 2.24% for CQQQ.
They also come from different issuers: CoreValues and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CGRO and 0.70% for CQQQ.
CQQQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.35 vs -0.48), 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.
Find the right allocation for CGRO 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