CQQQ vs. EMBE.L

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) and EMBE.L (iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist)) are both exchange-traded funds - CQQQ is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index, while EMBE.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the JPM EMBI Global Diversified Hedge TR EUR. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CQQQ returned 5.12%/yr vs 1.17%/yr for EMBE.L. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CQQQ charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for EMBE.L.

Performance

CQQQ vs. EMBE.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) and iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist) (EMBE.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CQQQ is traded in USD, while EMBE.L is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the EMBE.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CQQQ achieves a -2.77% return, which is significantly lower than EMBE.L's -1.42% return. Over the past 10 years, CQQQ has outperformed EMBE.L with an annualized return of 5.12%, while EMBE.L has yielded a comparatively lower 1.17% annualized return.

CQQQ

• 1D: -1.08%
• 1M: -5.74%
• YTD: -2.77%
• 6M: -3.14%
• 1Y: 20.91%
• 3Y*: 8.58%
• 5Y*: -8.26%
• 10Y*: 5.12%

EMBE.L

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: -2.61%
• YTD: -1.42%
• 6M: 0.22%
• 1Y: 9.86%
• 3Y*: 9.74%
• 5Y*: -1.66%
• 10Y*: 1.17%

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

CQQQ vs. EMBE.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	-2.77%	34.96%	9.84%	-16.71%	-30.09%	-24.54%	57.33%	33.57%	-34.77%	74.31%
EMBE.L iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist)	-1.42%	25.90%	-2.43%	11.06%	-25.61%	-9.86%	12.50%	10.09%	-12.68%	23.42%

Correlation

The correlation between CQQQ and EMBE.L is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.39
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.31
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.31
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 9, 2013	0.25

The correlation between CQQQ and EMBE.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.25 (all time) to 0.39 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CQQQ vs. EMBE.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CQQQ	EMBE.L
Technology	58.2%	-
Communication Services	21.9%	-
Consumer Cyclical	13.8%	-
Industrials	1.3%	-
Financial Services	0.1%	-0.3%
Basic Materials	0.1%	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

CQQQ vs. EMBE.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CQQQ

CQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 22
CQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
CQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
CQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 23
CQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 21
CQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 19

EMBE.L

EMBE.L Risk / Return Rank: 47
EMBE.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
EMBE.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
EMBE.L Omega Ratio Rank: 48
EMBE.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
EMBE.L Martin Ratio Rank: 47

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. EMBE.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) and iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist) (EMBE.L). 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.

	CQQQ	EMBE.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.70	1.00	-0.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.17	1.52	-0.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.18	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.86	1.23	-0.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.00	4.00	-1.99
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CQQQ vs. EMBE.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CQQQ Sharpe Ratio is 0.70, which is lower than the EMBE.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CQQQ and EMBE.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CQQQ	EMBE.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.70	1.00	-0.31
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.22	-0.12	-0.10
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.15	0.09	+0.07
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.18	0.09	+0.08

Drawdowns

CQQQ vs. EMBE.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CQQQ drawdown since its inception was -73.99%, which is greater than EMBE.L's maximum drawdown of -44.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CQQQ and EMBE.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CQQQ	EMBE.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-73.99%	-44.54%	-29.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.41%	-8.00%	-16.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.93%	-13.39%	-22.54%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-66.96%	-43.05%	-23.91%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-73.99%	-44.54%	-29.45%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-51.77%	-10.21%	-41.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.31%	-15.00%	-13.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.48%	2.46%	+8.02%

Volatility

CQQQ vs. EMBE.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a higher volatility of 11.83% compared to iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist) (EMBE.L) at 3.04%. This indicates that CQQQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMBE.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CQQQ	EMBE.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.83%	3.04%	+8.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.45%	7.40%	+15.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.22%	9.82%	+20.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	38.08%	13.68%	+24.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	33.34%	13.37%	+19.97%

CQQQ vs. EMBE.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CQQQ has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than EMBE.L's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

CQQQ vs. EMBE.L - Dividend Comparison

CQQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.23%, less than EMBE.L's 5.66% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	2.23%	2.17%	0.28%	0.55%	0.08%	0.00%	0.47%	0.01%	0.43%	1.41%	1.69%	1.77%
EMBE.L iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist)	5.66%	5.44%	5.64%	5.50%	5.39%	3.92%	3.85%	4.77%	5.75%	3.88%	5.36%	4.72%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CQQQ and EMBE.L in my portfolio?

CQQQ and EMBE.L have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CQQQ or EMBE.L?

On fees, EMBE.L is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CQQQ or EMBE.L?

EMBE.L is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for CQQQ.

What is the main difference between CQQQ and EMBE.L?

CQQQ is categorized as China Equities, while EMBE.L is Emerging Markets Bonds. CQQQ tracks FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index, while EMBE.L tracks JPM EMBI Global Diversified Hedge TR EUR. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for CQQQ and 0.50% for EMBE.L.