PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CQQQ vs. AAXJ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

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 2.46% return, which is significantly lower than AAXJ's 31.17% return. Over the past 10 years, CQQQ has underperformed AAXJ with an annualized return of 5.40%, while AAXJ has yielded a comparatively higher 10.50% annualized return.


CQQQ

1D
-1.50%
1M
4.43%
YTD
2.46%
6M
5.43%
1Y
32.76%
3Y*
10.55%
5Y*
-7.50%
10Y*
5.40%

AAXJ

1D
-1.06%
1M
10.65%
YTD
31.17%
6M
33.71%
1Y
59.00%
3Y*
24.49%
5Y*
7.04%
10Y*
10.50%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CQQQ vs. AAXJ - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CQQQ
Invesco China Technology ETF
2.46%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
31.17%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 0.72, 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

0.72

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

0.76

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

0.81

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

0.82

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 9, 2009

0.79

The correlation between CQQQ and AAXJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

CQQQ vs. AAXJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CQQQ
AAXJ

Technology

58.2%
41.6%

Communication Services

21.9%
6.9%

Consumer Cyclical

13.8%
10.3%

Industrials

1.3%
8.3%

Financial Services

0.1%
17.7%

Basic Materials

0.1%
3.5%

Consumer Defensive

-

2.4%

Energy

-

2.7%

Healthcare

-

3.0%

Real Estate

-

1.7%

Utilities

-

1.8%

Technology

CQQQ
58.2%
AAXJ
41.6%

Communication Services

CQQQ
21.9%
AAXJ
6.9%

Consumer Cyclical

CQQQ
13.8%
AAXJ
10.3%

Industrials

CQQQ
1.3%
AAXJ
8.3%

Financial Services

CQQQ
0.1%
AAXJ
17.7%

Basic Materials

CQQQ
0.1%
AAXJ
3.5%

Consumer Defensive

CQQQ

-

AAXJ
2.4%

Energy

CQQQ

-

AAXJ
2.7%

Healthcare

CQQQ

-

AAXJ
3.0%

Real Estate

CQQQ

-

AAXJ
1.7%

Utilities

CQQQ

-

AAXJ
1.8%

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

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: 2828
Overall Rank
CQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3030
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 3131
Sortino Ratio Rank
CQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 3030
Omega Ratio Rank
CQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 2727
Calmar Ratio Rank
CQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
Martin Ratio Rank

AAXJ
AAXJ Risk / Return Rank: 8484
Overall Rank
AAXJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AAXJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
AAXJ Omega Ratio Rank: 8585
Omega Ratio Rank
AAXJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 8282
Calmar Ratio Rank
AAXJ Martin Ratio Rank: 8282
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.


CQQQAAXJDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.82

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.09

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.20

1.53

-0.33

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.35

4.34

-2.99

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.16

16.76

-13.60

CQQQ vs. AAXJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CQQQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.11, which is lower than the AAXJ Sharpe Ratio of 2.93. 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CQQQAAXJDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.11

2.93

-1.82

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.20

0.35

-0.55

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.16

0.52

-0.36

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.19

0.28

-0.10

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%

-40.74%

-26.22%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-73.99%

-44.52%

-29.47%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-49.18%

-1.06%

-48.12%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-28.29%

-14.03%

-14.26%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

10.39%

3.53%

+6.86%

Volatility

CQQQ vs. AAXJ - Volatility Comparison

Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a higher volatility of 11.60% compared to iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF (AAXJ) at 8.93%. This indicates that CQQQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier 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

11.60%

8.93%

+2.67%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.88%

17.46%

+4.42%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

29.78%

20.25%

+9.53%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

38.02%

19.94%

+18.08%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

33.30%

20.25%

+13.05%

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 2.11%, more than AAXJ's 1.38% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
AAXJ
iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex-Japan ETF
1.38%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
2.11%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 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CQQQ has higher volatility (11.60%) compared to AAXJ (8.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CQQQ dropped -73.99% vs AAXJ's -49.37%.

On 10-year performance, AAXJ leads with 10.50% vs 5.40% for CQQQ. On fees, AAXJ is cheaper at 0.68% per year. On volatility, AAXJ has been the lower-risk option at 8.93%. 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 10.50% return vs 5.40%. 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 2.11%, compared with 1.38% for AAXJ.

CQQQ is categorized as China Equities, while AAXJ is Asia Pacific Equities. CQQQ tracks AlphaShares China Technology 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 (2.93 vs 1.11), 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