CMTFX vs. CQQQ
Compare and contrast key facts about Columbia Global Technology Growth Fund (CMTFX) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ).
CMTFX is managed by Columbia. It was launched on Nov 8, 2000. CQQQ is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the AlphaShares China Technology Index. It was launched on Dec 8, 2009.
Performance
CMTFX vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
CMTFX vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMTFX Columbia Global Technology Growth Fund | -6.05% | 25.10% | 31.72% | 56.85% | -34.63% | 23.04% | 49.65% | 44.21% | -1.26% | 43.38% |
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | -11.77% | 34.96% | 9.84% | -16.71% | -30.09% | -24.54% | 57.33% | 33.57% | -34.77% | 74.31% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CMTFX achieves a -6.05% return, which is significantly higher than CQQQ's -11.77% return. Over the past 10 years, CMTFX has outperformed CQQQ with an annualized return of 21.08%, while CQQQ has yielded a comparatively lower 3.73% annualized return.
CMTFX
- 1D
- 4.58%
- 1M
- -5.89%
- YTD
- -6.05%
- 6M
- -4.98%
- 1Y
- 32.66%
- 3Y*
- 26.02%
- 5Y*
- 13.22%
- 10Y*
- 21.08%
CQQQ
- 1D
- -0.30%
- 1M
- -10.16%
- YTD
- -11.77%
- 6M
- -21.47%
- 1Y
- 5.59%
- 3Y*
- 0.49%
- 5Y*
- -10.79%
- 10Y*
- 3.73%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
CMTFX vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
CMTFX has a 0.92% expense ratio, which is higher than CQQQ's 0.70% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
CMTFX vs. CQQQ — Risk / Return Rank
CMTFX
CQQQ
CMTFX vs. CQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Global Technology Growth Fund (CMTFX) 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.
| CMTFX | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.25 | 0.18 | +1.07 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.86 | 0.48 | +1.37 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.26 | 1.06 | +0.20 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.34 | 0.24 | +2.10 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.20 | 0.64 | +7.56 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CMTFX | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.25 | 0.18 | +1.07 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.51 | -0.29 | +0.80 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.86 | 0.11 | +0.74 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.44 | 0.16 | +0.29 |
Correlation
The correlation between CMTFX and CQQQ is 0.60, 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.
Dividends
CMTFX vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison
CMTFX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.29%, more than CQQQ's 2.45% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMTFX Columbia Global Technology Growth Fund | 3.29% | 3.09% | 1.02% | 2.23% | 3.36% | 4.19% | 0.87% | 2.44% | 5.89% | 3.60% | 0.35% | 1.74% |
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | 2.45% | 2.17% | 0.28% | 0.55% | 0.08% | 0.00% | 0.47% | 0.01% | 0.43% | 1.41% | 1.69% | 1.77% |
Drawdowns
CMTFX vs. CQQQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CMTFX drawdown since its inception was -68.28%, smaller than the maximum CQQQ drawdown of -73.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMTFX and CQQQ.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| CMTFX | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -68.28% | -73.99% | +5.71% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -14.35% | -24.41% | +10.06% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -39.42% | -67.04% | +27.62% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -39.42% | -73.99% | +34.57% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -10.42% | -56.24% | +45.82% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -16.39% | -28.05% | +11.66% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.09% | 9.10% | -5.01% |
Volatility
CMTFX vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Columbia Global Technology Growth Fund (CMTFX) is 8.94%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 9.50%. This indicates that CMTFX 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 graphics...
Volatility by Period
| CMTFX | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.94% | 9.50% | -0.56% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 16.85% | 20.69% | -3.84% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.32% | 31.94% | -4.62% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 25.88% | 37.70% | -11.82% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 24.70% | 33.05% | -8.35% |