CQQQ vs. ISVBF
CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) and ISVBF (iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds - CQQQ tracks the FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index while ISVBF tracks the MSCI China A Inclusion Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CQQQ returned -5.62%/yr vs -2.48%/yr for ISVBF. Their 0.30 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. CQQQ charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for ISVBF.
Performance
CQQQ vs. ISVBF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CQQQ achieves a -0.60% return, which is significantly higher than ISVBF's -6.75% return.
CQQQ
- 1D
- 2.99%
- 1M
- -4.26%
- 6M
- -4.67%
- YTD
- -0.60%
- 1Y
- 12.26%
- 3Y*
- 7.52%
- 5Y*
- -5.62%
- 10Y*
- 4.42%
- ALL TIME*
- 5.51%
ISVBF
- 1D
- -0.66%
- 1M
- 9.06%
- 6M
- -8.63%
- YTD
- -6.75%
- 1Y
- -0.99%
- 3Y*
- 8.45%
- 5Y*
- -2.48%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -4.43%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $53.35M | $63.10M | $77.04M | |
| $147.49K | $255.95K | $315.23K |
CQQQ vs. ISVBF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | -0.60% | 34.96% | 9.84% | -16.71% | -30.09% | -22.64% |
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | -6.75% | 30.64% | 18.96% | -9.28% | -23.01% | -22.12% |
Correlation
The correlation between CQQQ and ISVBF is 0.51, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.51 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.44 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.31 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2021 | 0.30 |
Over the past year, CQQQ and ISVBF have become more correlated (0.51) than their long-term average of 0.30, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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. ISVBF — Risk / Return Rank
CQQQ
ISVBF
CQQQ vs. ISVBF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) and iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF). 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 | ISVBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.41 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.58 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.09 | 1.02 | +0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.50 | -0.04 | +0.55 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.08 | -0.09 | +1.17 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CQQQ vs. ISVBF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CQQQ drawdown since its inception was -73.99%, which is greater than ISVBF's maximum drawdown of -53.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CQQQ and ISVBF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CQQQ | ISVBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -73.99% | -53.78% | -20.21% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -24.41% | -24.14% | -0.27% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -34.42% | -24.14% | -10.28% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -62.09% | -46.06% | -16.03% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -73.99% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -50.69% | -24.42% | -26.27% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -28.50% | -32.57% | +4.07% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.34% | 11.23% | +0.11% |
Volatility
CQQQ vs. ISVBF - Volatility Comparison
Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a higher volatility of 11.42% compared to iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) at 6.46%. This indicates that CQQQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ISVBF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CQQQ | ISVBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.42% | 6.46% | +4.96% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 24.86% | 26.45% | -1.59% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 32.60% | 31.60% | +1.00% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 38.19% | 30.08% | +8.11% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 33.57% | 30.06% | +3.51% |
CQQQ vs. ISVBF - Expense Ratio Comparison
CQQQ has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than ISVBF's 0.40% expense ratio.
Dividends
CQQQ vs. ISVBF - Dividend Comparison
CQQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.18%, while ISVBF has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | 2.18% | 2.17% | 0.28% | 0.55% | 0.08% | 0.00% | 0.47% | 0.01% | 0.43% | 1.41% | 1.69% | 1.77% |
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CQQQ and ISVBF have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CQQQ has higher volatility (11.42%) compared to ISVBF (6.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CQQQ dropped -73.99% vs ISVBF's -53.78%.
On 5-year performance, ISVBF leads with -2.48% vs -5.62% for CQQQ. On fees, ISVBF is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, ISVBF has been the lower-risk option at 6.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, ISVBF has performed better with a -2.48% return vs -5.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ISVBF is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for CQQQ.
CQQQ has the higher dividend yield at 2.18%, compared with 0.00% for ISVBF.
CQQQ tracks FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index, while ISVBF tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for CQQQ and 0.40% for ISVBF.
CQQQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.38 vs -0.03), 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 ISVBF
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