CNQQ vs. TAN
CNQQ (Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF) and TAN (Invesco Solar ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CNQQ is a China Equities fund tracking the Solactive ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech, while TAN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the MAC Global Solar Energy Index. Both are passively managed. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CNQQ charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for TAN.
Performance
CNQQ vs. TAN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CNQQ achieves a 12.03% return, which is significantly lower than TAN's 30.39% return.
CNQQ
- 1D
- 0.38%
- 1M
- 7.11%
- YTD
- 12.03%
- 6M
- 12.44%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
TAN
- 1D
- -9.07%
- 1M
- 5.92%
- YTD
- 30.39%
- 6M
- 34.30%
- 1Y
- 92.17%
- 3Y*
- -3.30%
- 5Y*
- -3.46%
- 10Y*
- 12.22%
CNQQ vs. TAN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CNQQ Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF | 12.03% | -5.96% |
TAN Invesco Solar ETF | 30.39% | 13.13% |
Correlation
The correlation between CNQQ and TAN is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2025 | 0.46 |
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
CNQQ vs. TAN — Risk / Return Rank
CNQQ
TAN
CNQQ vs. TAN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF (CNQQ) and Invesco Solar ETF (TAN). 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.
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CNQQ | TAN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | — | 2.42 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | -0.09 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.32 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.33 | -0.13 | +0.46 |
Drawdowns
CNQQ vs. TAN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CNQQ drawdown since its inception was -17.82%, smaller than the maximum TAN drawdown of -95.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNQQ and TAN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CNQQ | TAN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -17.82% | -95.29% | +77.47% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -13.62% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -64.40% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -73.95% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -78.53% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.09% | -70.59% | +69.50% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.19% | -78.51% | +69.32% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 5.69% | — |
Volatility
CNQQ vs. TAN - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CNQQ | TAN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 15.55% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 27.14% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.37% | 38.28% | -13.91% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.37% | 39.93% | -15.56% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 24.37% | 38.08% | -13.71% |
CNQQ vs. TAN - Expense Ratio Comparison
CNQQ has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than TAN's 0.69% expense ratio.
Dividends
CNQQ vs. TAN - Dividend Comparison
CNQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.23%, while TAN has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNQQ Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF | 0.23% | 0.09% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
TAN Invesco Solar ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.50% | 0.09% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.09% | 0.30% | 0.69% | 1.77% | 5.04% | 1.60% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CNQQ and TAN have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, TAN is cheaper at 0.69% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
TAN is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CNQQ.
CNQQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.23%, compared with 0.00% for TAN.
CNQQ is categorized as China Equities, while TAN is Alternative Energy Equities. CNQQ tracks Solactive ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech, while TAN tracks MAC Global Solar Energy Index. They also come from different issuers: Rayliant and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CNQQ and 0.69% for TAN.
Find the right allocation for CNQQ and TAN
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