CQQQ vs. EWG
CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) and EWG (iShares MSCI Germany ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CQQQ is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index, while EWG is a Europe Equities fund tracking the MSCI Germany Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CQQQ returned 5.36%/yr vs 8.18%/yr for EWG. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CQQQ charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for EWG.
Performance
CQQQ vs. EWG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CQQQ achieves a -1.35% return, which is significantly lower than EWG's -0.45% return. Over the past 10 years, CQQQ has underperformed EWG with an annualized return of 5.36%, while EWG has yielded a comparatively higher 8.18% annualized return.
CQQQ
- 1D
- -1.27%
- 1M
- -8.85%
- YTD
- -1.35%
- 6M
- -0.24%
- 1Y
- 21.23%
- 3Y*
- 8.01%
- 5Y*
- -8.12%
- 10Y*
- 5.36%
EWG
- 1D
- 0.09%
- 1M
- 0.36%
- YTD
- -0.45%
- 6M
- 0.31%
- 1Y
- 1.88%
- 3Y*
- 15.78%
- 5Y*
- 5.72%
- 10Y*
- 8.18%
CQQQ vs. EWG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | -1.35% | 34.96% | 9.84% | -16.71% | -30.09% | -24.54% | 57.33% | 33.57% | -34.77% | 74.31% |
EWG iShares MSCI Germany ETF | -0.45% | 35.79% | 9.79% | 23.35% | -22.27% | 5.84% | 10.09% | 19.15% | -21.40% | 27.42% |
Correlation
The correlation between CQQQ and EWG is 0.50, 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 | 0.50 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.43 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.45 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.50 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 8, 2009 | 0.52 |
The correlation between CQQQ and EWG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.43 to 0.52 - a consistent structural relationship.
CQQQ vs. EWG - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CQQQ
EWG
Technology
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Financial Services
Basic Materials
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
-
Healthcare
-
Real Estate
-
Utilities
-
Technology
CQQQ
EWG
Communication Services
CQQQ
EWG
Consumer Cyclical
CQQQ
EWG
Industrials
CQQQ
EWG
Financial Services
CQQQ
EWG
Basic Materials
CQQQ
EWG
Consumer Defensive
CQQQ
-
EWG
Energy
CQQQ
-
EWG
-
Healthcare
CQQQ
-
EWG
Real Estate
CQQQ
-
EWG
Utilities
CQQQ
-
EWG
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. EWG — Risk / Return Rank
CQQQ
EWG
CQQQ vs. EWG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) and iShares MSCI Germany ETF (EWG). 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.
| CQQQ | EWG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.60 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.91 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.14 | 1.03 | +0.11 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.87 | 0.13 | +0.74 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.01 | 0.38 | +1.63 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CQQQ vs. EWG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CQQQ drawdown since its inception was -73.99%, which is greater than EWG's maximum drawdown of -67.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CQQQ and EWG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CQQQ | EWG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -73.99% | -67.57% | -6.42% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -24.41% | -14.54% | -9.87% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -35.93% | -15.81% | -20.12% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -66.96% | -43.23% | -23.73% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -73.99% | -46.80% | -27.19% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -51.07% | -5.05% | -46.02% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -28.32% | -19.18% | -9.14% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.60% | 4.97% | +5.63% |
Volatility
CQQQ vs. EWG - Volatility Comparison
Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a higher volatility of 10.63% compared to iShares MSCI Germany ETF (EWG) at 6.22%. This indicates that CQQQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EWG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CQQQ | EWG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.63% | 6.22% | +4.41% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 22.55% | 14.61% | +7.94% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 30.20% | 17.66% | +12.54% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 38.09% | 20.54% | +17.55% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 33.33% | 21.10% | +12.23% |
CQQQ vs. EWG - Expense Ratio Comparison
CQQQ has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than EWG's 0.49% expense ratio.
Dividends
CQQQ vs. EWG - Dividend Comparison
CQQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.20%, more than EWG's 1.61% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | 2.20% | 2.17% | 0.28% | 0.55% | 0.08% | 0.00% | 0.47% | 0.01% | 0.43% | 1.41% | 1.69% | 1.77% |
EWG iShares MSCI Germany ETF | 1.61% | 1.60% | 2.38% | 2.56% | 3.24% | 2.70% | 1.67% | 2.51% | 2.93% | 2.06% | 2.35% | 1.93% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CQQQ and EWG have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CQQQ has higher volatility (10.63%) compared to EWG (6.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CQQQ dropped -73.99% vs EWG's -67.57%.
On 10-year performance, EWG leads with 8.18% vs 5.36% for CQQQ. On fees, EWG is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, EWG has been the lower-risk option at 6.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, EWG has performed better with a 8.18% return vs 5.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EWG is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for CQQQ.
CQQQ has the higher dividend yield at 2.20%, compared with 1.61% for EWG.
CQQQ is categorized as China Equities, while EWG is Europe Equities. CQQQ tracks FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index, while EWG tracks MSCI Germany Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for CQQQ and 0.49% for EWG.
CQQQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.71 vs 0.11), 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.
Find the right allocation for CQQQ and EWG
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