CNQQ vs. UGA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CNQQ (Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF) and UGA (United States Gasoline Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - CNQQ is a China Equities fund tracking the Solactive ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech, while UGA is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Unleaded Gasoline. Both are passively managed. At a correlation of -0.12, they often move in opposite directions. Both charge a 0.75% expense ratio.

Performance

CNQQ vs. UGA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF (CNQQ) and United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNQQ achieves a 10.04% return, which is significantly lower than UGA's 64.09% return.

CNQQ

• 1D: -3.47%
• 1M: 1.11%
• YTD: 10.04%
• 6M: 9.35%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

UGA

• 1D: -1.12%
• 1M: -12.11%
• YTD: 64.09%
• 6M: 60.42%
• 1Y: 59.74%
• 3Y*: 18.95%
• 5Y*: 22.69%
• 10Y*: 14.31%

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

CNQQ vs. UGA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CNQQ Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF	10.04%	-5.22%
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP	64.09%	-5.77%

Correlation

The correlation between CNQQ and UGA is -0.12, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 26, 2025	-0.12

Return for Risk

CNQQ vs. UGA — Risk / Return Rank

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

CNQQ

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

UGA

UGA Risk / Return Rank: 55
UGA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
UGA Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
UGA Omega Ratio Rank: 49
UGA Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
UGA Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

CNQQ vs. UGA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF (CNQQ) and United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). 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.

	CNQQ	UGA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.73	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.25	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.30	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	3.17	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	9.39	—

Drawdowns

CNQQ vs. UGA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNQQ drawdown since its inception was -17.82%, smaller than the maximum UGA drawdown of -86.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNQQ and UGA.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNQQ	UGA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.82%	-86.59%	+68.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-18.96%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.68%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-38.11%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-75.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.47%	-18.05%	+14.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.81%	-36.69%	+27.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	6.43%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CNQQ	UGA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	9.24%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	30.57%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.33%	35.22%	-9.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.33%	34.45%	-9.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.33%	37.22%	-11.89%

CNQQ vs. UGA - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both CNQQ and UGA have an expense ratio of 0.75%.

Dividends

CNQQ vs. UGA - Dividend Comparison

CNQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.23%, while UGA has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
CNQQ Rayliant-ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech ETF	0.23%	0.09%
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNQQ and UGA in my portfolio?

CNQQ and UGA have a correlation of -0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CNQQ or UGA?

Both ETFs have the same 0.75% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNQQ or UGA?

CNQQ and UGA have the same expense ratio: 0.75% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CNQQ or UGA?

CNQQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.23%, compared with 0.00% for UGA.

What is the main difference between CNQQ and UGA?

CNQQ is categorized as China Equities, while UGA is Oil & Gas. CNQQ tracks Solactive ChinaAMC Transformative China Tech, while UGA tracks Front Month Unleaded Gasoline. They also come from different issuers: Rayliant and Concierge Technologies.