CQQQ vs. KWEB
CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) and KWEB (KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF) are both China Equities funds - CQQQ tracks the FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index while KWEB tracks the CSI Overseas China Internet Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CQQQ returned 5.36%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for KWEB. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.70% expense ratio.
Performance
CQQQ vs. KWEB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CQQQ achieves a -1.35% return, which is significantly higher than KWEB's -22.20% return. Over the past 10 years, CQQQ has outperformed KWEB with an annualized return of 5.36%, while KWEB has yielded a comparatively lower 0.12% annualized return.
CQQQ
- 1D
- -1.27%
- 1M
- -4.26%
- YTD
- -1.35%
- 6M
- -0.24%
- 1Y
- 23.87%
- 3Y*
- 8.01%
- 5Y*
- -8.12%
- 10Y*
- 5.36%
KWEB
- 1D
- -0.30%
- 1M
- -9.28%
- YTD
- -22.20%
- 6M
- -23.82%
- 1Y
- -17.34%
- 3Y*
- 1.28%
- 5Y*
- -14.40%
- 10Y*
- 0.12%
CQQQ vs. KWEB - 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% |
KWEB KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF | -22.20% | 23.55% | 12.01% | -9.06% | -17.24% | -49.01% | 58.23% | 29.92% | -33.80% | 69.73% |
Correlation
The correlation between CQQQ and KWEB is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.83 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.88 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.91 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.90 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2013 | 0.89 |
The correlation between CQQQ and KWEB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.
CQQQ vs. KWEB - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CQQQ
KWEB
Technology
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Financial Services
Basic Materials
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
-
Healthcare
-
Real Estate
-
Utilities
-
-
Technology
CQQQ
KWEB
Communication Services
CQQQ
KWEB
Consumer Cyclical
CQQQ
KWEB
Industrials
CQQQ
KWEB
Financial Services
CQQQ
KWEB
Basic Materials
CQQQ
KWEB
-
Consumer Defensive
CQQQ
-
KWEB
Energy
CQQQ
-
KWEB
-
Healthcare
CQQQ
-
KWEB
Real Estate
CQQQ
-
KWEB
Utilities
CQQQ
-
KWEB
-
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. KWEB — Risk / Return Rank
CQQQ
KWEB
CQQQ vs. KWEB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) and KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF (KWEB). 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 | KWEB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.42 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.11 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.14 | 0.90 | +0.25 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.87 | -0.55 | +1.42 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.01 | -1.09 | +3.10 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CQQQ vs. KWEB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CQQQ drawdown since its inception was -73.99%, smaller than the maximum KWEB drawdown of -80.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CQQQ and KWEB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CQQQ | KWEB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -73.99% | -80.92% | +6.93% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -24.41% | -35.46% | +11.05% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -35.93% | -35.46% | -0.47% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -66.96% | -72.17% | +5.21% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -73.99% | -80.92% | +6.93% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -51.07% | -69.36% | +18.29% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -28.32% | -35.30% | +6.98% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.60% | 17.80% | -7.20% |
Volatility
CQQQ vs. KWEB - Volatility Comparison
Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a higher volatility of 10.63% compared to KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF (KWEB) at 9.39%. This indicates that CQQQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than KWEB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CQQQ | KWEB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.63% | 9.39% | +1.24% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 22.55% | 20.21% | +2.34% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 30.20% | 27.20% | +3.00% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 38.09% | 47.66% | -9.57% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 33.33% | 39.98% | -6.65% |
CQQQ vs. KWEB - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both CQQQ and KWEB have an expense ratio of 0.70%.
Dividends
CQQQ vs. KWEB - Dividend Comparison
CQQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.20%, less than KWEB's 7.91% 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% |
KWEB KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF | 7.91% | 6.16% | 3.51% | 1.71% | 0.00% | 7.07% | 0.29% | 0.08% | 3.40% | 0.58% | 1.19% | 0.46% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CQQQ and KWEB have a correlation of 0.83, 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 KWEB (9.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CQQQ dropped -73.99% vs KWEB's -80.92%.
On 10-year performance, CQQQ leads with 5.36% vs 0.12% for KWEB. Both ETFs have the same 0.70% expense ratio. On volatility, KWEB has been the lower-risk option at 9.39%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, CQQQ has performed better with a 5.36% return vs 0.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CQQQ and KWEB have the same expense ratio: 0.70% per year.
KWEB has the higher dividend yield at 7.91%, compared with 2.20% for CQQQ.
CQQQ tracks FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index, while KWEB tracks CSI Overseas China Internet Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and KraneShares.
CQQQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.71 vs -0.71), 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 KWEB
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