PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CQQQ vs. AAXJ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CQQQ vs. AAXJ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) and AAXJ (iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CQQQ is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index, while AAXJ is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI All Country Asia ex Japan Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CQQQ returned 5.85%/yr vs 10.35%/yr for AAXJ. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CQQQ charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for AAXJ.

Performance

CQQQ vs. AAXJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) and iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF (AAXJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CQQQ achieves a 2.98% return, which is significantly lower than AAXJ's 25.79% return. Over the past 10 years, CQQQ has underperformed AAXJ with an annualized return of 5.85%, while AAXJ has yielded a comparatively higher 10.35% annualized return.

CQQQ

1D
-2.80%
1M
1.48%
YTD
2.98%
6M
3.86%
1Y
28.75%
3Y*
11.40%
5Y*
-7.83%
10Y*
5.85%

AAXJ

1D
-6.03%
1M
2.68%
YTD
25.79%
6M
26.97%
1Y
47.85%
3Y*
23.41%
5Y*
6.42%
10Y*
10.35%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CQQQ vs. AAXJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CQQQ
Invesco China Technology ETF		2.98%34.96%9.84%-16.71%-30.09%-24.54%57.33%33.57%-34.77%74.31%
AAXJ
iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF		25.79%31.53%10.41%4.79%-20.35%-5.73%23.35%17.93%-15.04%41.76%

Correlation

The correlation between CQQQ and AAXJ is 0.70, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.70

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.75

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.81

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.81

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 8, 2009

0.79

The correlation between CQQQ and AAXJ shifts across timeframes, from 0.70 (1 year) to 0.81 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CQQQ vs. AAXJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CQQQ
AAXJ

Technology

61.0%
49.4%

Communication Services

20.6%
5.9%

Consumer Cyclical

13.0%
8.9%

Financial Services

8.5%
15.8%

Industrials

1.3%
7.3%

Basic Materials

0.1%
3.1%

Consumer Defensive

-

2.0%

Energy

-

2.2%

Healthcare

-

2.6%

Real Estate

-

1.4%

Utilities

-

1.6%

Technology

CQQQ
61.0%
AAXJ
49.4%

Communication Services

CQQQ
20.6%
AAXJ
5.9%

Consumer Cyclical

CQQQ
13.0%
AAXJ
8.9%

Financial Services

CQQQ
8.5%
AAXJ
15.8%

Industrials

CQQQ
1.3%
AAXJ
7.3%

Basic Materials

CQQQ
0.1%
AAXJ
3.1%

Consumer Defensive

CQQQ

-

AAXJ
2.0%

Energy

CQQQ

-

AAXJ
2.2%

Healthcare

CQQQ

-

AAXJ
2.6%

Real Estate

CQQQ

-

AAXJ
1.4%

Utilities

CQQQ

-

AAXJ
1.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Invesco China Technology ETF

iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF

Often compared with CQQQ:
CQQQ vs. KWEBCQQQ vs. MCHICQQQ vs. FXICQQQ vs. TCHICQQQ vs. VOOCQQQ vs. PGJCQQQ vs. CWEB
Often compared with AAXJ:
AAXJ vs. VPLAAXJ vs. IEMGAAXJ vs. VWOAAXJ vs. BBAXAAXJ vs. EPPAAXJ vs. THDAAXJ vs. ACWI

Return for Risk

CQQQ vs. AAXJ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CQQQ
CQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 2626
Overall Rank
CQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2727
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
CQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 2727
Omega Ratio Rank
CQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 2525
Calmar Ratio Rank
CQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 2222
Martin Ratio Rank
AAXJ
AAXJ Risk / Return Rank: 6868
Overall Rank
AAXJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AAXJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
AAXJ Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
AAXJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
AAXJ Martin Ratio Rank: 7272
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

CQQQ vs. AAXJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) and iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF (AAXJ). 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.

CQQQAAXJDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.94
2.06

-1.11

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.48
2.62

-1.14

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.39

-0.22

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.18

3.52

-2.34

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.70

12.86

-10.16

CQQQ vs. AAXJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CQQQ Sharpe Ratio is 0.94, which is lower than the AAXJ Sharpe Ratio of 2.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CQQQ and AAXJ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

CQQQ vs. AAXJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CQQQ drawdown since its inception was -73.99%, which is greater than AAXJ's maximum drawdown of -49.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CQQQ and AAXJ.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CQQQAAXJDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-73.99%

-49.37%

-24.62%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-24.41%

-13.66%

-10.75%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-35.93%

-19.74%

-16.19%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-66.96%

-40.64%

-26.32%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-73.99%

-44.52%

-29.47%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-48.92%

-6.03%

-42.89%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-28.35%

-14.00%

-14.35%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

10.68%

3.73%

+6.95%

Volatility

CQQQ vs. AAXJ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) is 10.74%, while iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF (AAXJ) has a volatility of 13.43%. This indicates that CQQQ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AAXJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CQQQAAXJDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.74%

13.43%

-2.69%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

23.33%

21.20%

+2.13%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

30.65%

23.39%

+7.26%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

38.16%

20.63%

+17.53%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

33.38%

20.51%

+12.87%

CQQQ vs. AAXJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

CQQQ has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than AAXJ's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

CQQQ vs. AAXJ - Dividend Comparison

CQQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.10%, more than AAXJ's 1.32% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
AAXJ
iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF		1.32%1.81%1.86%1.95%1.74%2.21%1.06%1.83%2.10%1.99%1.77%2.44%
CQQQ
Invesco China Technology ETF		2.10%2.17%0.28%0.55%0.08%0.00%0.47%0.01%0.43%1.41%1.69%1.77%

Frequently Asked Questions

CQQQ and AAXJ have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

AAXJ has higher volatility (13.43%) compared to CQQQ (10.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CQQQ dropped -73.99% vs AAXJ's -49.37%.

On 10-year performance, AAXJ leads with 10.35% vs 5.85% for CQQQ. On fees, AAXJ is cheaper at 0.68% per year. On volatility, CQQQ has been the lower-risk option at 10.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, AAXJ has performed better with a 10.35% return vs 5.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

AAXJ is cheaper with a 0.68% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for CQQQ.

CQQQ has the higher dividend yield at 2.10%, compared with 1.32% for AAXJ.

CQQQ is categorized as China Equities, while AAXJ is Asia Pacific Equities. CQQQ tracks FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index, while AAXJ tracks MSCI All Country Asia ex Japan Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for CQQQ and 0.68% for AAXJ.

AAXJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.06 vs 0.94), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CQQQ and AAXJ

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