CM5S.L vs. EQGB.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CM5S.L (Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) and EQGB.L (Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - CM5S.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while EQGB.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CM5S.L returned 19.85%/yr vs 27.25%/yr for EQGB.L. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.35% expense ratio.

Performance

CM5S.L vs. EQGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (CM5S.L) and Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with CM5S.L having a 19.25% return and EQGB.L slightly lower at 18.86%.

CM5S.L

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 2.36%
• YTD: 19.25%
• 6M: 27.95%
• 1Y: 71.20%
• 3Y*: 19.85%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EQGB.L

• 1D: -0.71%
• 1M: 8.42%
• YTD: 18.86%
• 6M: 18.41%
• 1Y: 39.13%
• 3Y*: 27.25%
• 5Y*: 16.35%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CM5S.L vs. EQGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CM5S.L Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc	19.25%	42.07%	14.29%	-14.04%	13.69%
EQGB.L Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc	18.86%	19.59%	26.12%	53.92%	-13.01%

Correlation

The correlation between CM5S.L and EQGB.L is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.27
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 10, 2022	0.13

The correlation between CM5S.L and EQGB.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.13 (all time) to 0.27 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

CM5S.L vs. EQGB.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CM5S.L

CM5S.L Risk / Return Rank: 91
CM5S.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
CM5S.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
CM5S.L Omega Ratio Rank: 90
CM5S.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
CM5S.L Martin Ratio Rank: 91

EQGB.L

EQGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 73
EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
EQGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
EQGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 72
EQGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
EQGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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.

CM5S.L vs. EQGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (CM5S.L) and Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L). 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.

	CM5S.L	EQGB.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.49	2.46	+1.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.20	3.41	+0.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	1.42	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.48	3.44	+2.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.45	12.32	+9.13
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CM5S.L vs. EQGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CM5S.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.49, which is higher than the EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CM5S.L and EQGB.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CM5S.L	EQGB.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.49	2.46	+1.03
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.78	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.68	0.91	-0.24

Drawdowns

CM5S.L vs. EQGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CM5S.L drawdown since its inception was -38.57%, roughly equal to the maximum EQGB.L drawdown of -36.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CM5S.L and EQGB.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CM5S.L	EQGB.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.57%	-36.77%	-1.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.93%	-11.33%	-1.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.12%	-22.76%	-3.36%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-36.77%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.43%	-0.81%	-3.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.46%	-7.52%	-5.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.31%	3.17%	+0.14%

Volatility

CM5S.L vs. EQGB.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (CM5S.L) has a higher volatility of 6.29% compared to Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) at 4.92%. This indicates that CM5S.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EQGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CM5S.L	EQGB.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.29%	4.92%	+1.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.26%	11.88%	+3.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.30%	15.81%	+4.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.03%	20.95%	+4.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.03%	21.25%	+3.78%

CM5S.L vs. EQGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both CM5S.L and EQGB.L have an expense ratio of 0.35%.

Dividends

CM5S.L vs. EQGB.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CM5S.L nor EQGB.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CM5S.L Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EQGB.L Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.04%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CM5S.L and EQGB.L in my portfolio?

CM5S.L and EQGB.L have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CM5S.L or EQGB.L?

Both ETFs have the same 0.35% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CM5S.L or EQGB.L?

CM5S.L and EQGB.L have the same expense ratio: 0.35% per year.

What is the main difference between CM5S.L and EQGB.L?

CM5S.L is categorized as China Equities, while EQGB.L is Nasdaq-100. CM5S.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while EQGB.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index.