CNXT vs. PGJ
CNXT (VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC SME-ChiNext ETF) and PGJ (Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF) are both China Equities funds - CNXT tracks the SME-ChiNext 100 Index while PGJ tracks the Halter USX China Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CNXT returned 7.66%/yr vs -0.29%/yr for PGJ. A 0.50 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CNXT charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for PGJ.
Performance
CNXT vs. PGJ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CNXT achieves a 41.99% return, which is significantly higher than PGJ's -23.70% return. Over the past 10 years, CNXT has outperformed PGJ with an annualized return of 7.66%, while PGJ has yielded a comparatively lower -0.29% annualized return.
CNXT
- 1D
- 3.88%
- 1M
- 8.35%
- YTD
- 41.99%
- 6M
- 39.66%
- 1Y
- 119.78%
- 3Y*
- 30.77%
- 5Y*
- 5.14%
- 10Y*
- 7.66%
PGJ
- 1D
- -2.80%
- 1M
- -12.94%
- YTD
- -23.70%
- 6M
- -24.84%
- 1Y
- -21.34%
- 3Y*
- -2.41%
- 5Y*
- -16.10%
- 10Y*
- -0.29%
CNXT vs. PGJ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNXT VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC SME-ChiNext ETF | 41.99% | 59.31% | 12.42% | -21.47% | -35.58% | 8.78% | 63.30% | 42.66% | -39.48% | 20.19% |
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | -23.70% | 13.66% | 5.91% | -2.38% | -24.50% | -42.87% | 54.24% | 32.18% | -29.51% | 60.27% |
Correlation
The correlation between CNXT and PGJ is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.47 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.58 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.54 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.52 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 24, 2014 | 0.50 |
The correlation between CNXT and PGJ shifts across timeframes, from 0.47 (1 year) to 0.58 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
CNXT vs. PGJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CNXT
PGJ
Industrials
Technology
Basic Materials
-
Healthcare
Financial Services
Consumer Defensive
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Energy
-
Real Estate
-
Utilities
-
-
Industrials
CNXT
PGJ
Technology
CNXT
PGJ
Basic Materials
CNXT
PGJ
-
Healthcare
CNXT
PGJ
Financial Services
CNXT
PGJ
Consumer Defensive
CNXT
PGJ
Communication Services
CNXT
PGJ
Consumer Cyclical
CNXT
PGJ
Energy
CNXT
-
PGJ
Real Estate
CNXT
-
PGJ
Utilities
CNXT
-
PGJ
-
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
CNXT vs. PGJ — Risk / Return Rank
CNXT
PGJ
CNXT vs. PGJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC SME-ChiNext ETF (CNXT) and Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ). 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.
| CNXT | PGJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +4.61 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +5.52 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.55 | 0.87 | +0.68 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 9.87 | -0.61 | +10.48 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 29.07 | -1.41 | +30.48 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CNXT vs. PGJ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CNXT drawdown since its inception was -68.98%, smaller than the maximum PGJ drawdown of -78.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNXT and PGJ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CNXT | PGJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -68.98% | -78.37% | +9.39% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.21% | -35.08% | +22.87% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -48.60% | -35.08% | -13.52% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -61.21% | -70.00% | +8.79% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -63.30% | -78.37% | +15.07% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.13% | -70.91% | +70.78% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -42.74% | -31.83% | -10.91% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.14% | 15.21% | -11.07% |
Volatility
CNXT vs. PGJ - Volatility Comparison
VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC SME-ChiNext ETF (CNXT) has a higher volatility of 12.73% compared to Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) at 6.66%. This indicates that CNXT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PGJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CNXT | PGJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 12.73% | 6.66% | +6.07% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 22.50% | 17.82% | +4.68% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 32.39% | 24.38% | +8.01% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 35.55% | 43.77% | -8.22% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 31.78% | 36.71% | -4.93% |
CNXT vs. PGJ - Expense Ratio Comparison
CNXT has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than PGJ's 0.70% expense ratio.
Dividends
CNXT vs. PGJ - Dividend Comparison
CNXT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than PGJ's 3.50% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNXT VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC SME-ChiNext ETF | 0.13% | 0.18% | 0.15% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 9.22% | 0.01% | 0.45% | 0.00% | 0.19% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | 3.50% | 3.38% | 4.70% | 2.50% | 0.84% | 0.00% | 0.30% | 0.17% | 0.31% | 2.05% | 1.94% | 0.37% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CNXT and PGJ have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CNXT has higher volatility (12.73%) compared to PGJ (6.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CNXT dropped -68.98% vs PGJ's -78.37%.
On 10-year performance, CNXT leads with 7.66% vs -0.29% for PGJ. On fees, CNXT is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, PGJ has been the lower-risk option at 6.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, CNXT has performed better with a 7.66% return vs -0.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CNXT is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for PGJ.
PGJ has the higher dividend yield at 3.50%, compared with 0.13% for CNXT.
CNXT tracks SME-ChiNext 100 Index, while PGJ tracks Halter USX China Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for CNXT and 0.70% for PGJ.
CNXT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.73 vs -0.88), 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 CNXT and PGJ
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