CQQQ vs. MCHS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) and MCHS (Matthews China Discovery Active ETF) are both China Equities funds. CQQQ is passively managed, while MCHS is actively managed. Over the past year, CQQQ returned 32.76% vs 74.61% for MCHS. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CQQQ charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for MCHS.

Performance

CQQQ vs. MCHS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) and Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CQQQ achieves a 2.46% return, which is significantly lower than MCHS's 44.10% 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%

MCHS

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 8.54%
• YTD: 44.10%
• 6M: 45.75%
• 1Y: 74.61%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CQQQ vs. MCHS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	2.46%	34.96%	18.72%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	44.10%	31.19%	6.53%

Correlation

The correlation between CQQQ and MCHS is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 12, 2024	0.77

The correlation between CQQQ and MCHS shifts across timeframes, from 0.66 (1 year) to 0.77 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CQQQ vs. MCHS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CQQQ	MCHS
Technology	58.2%	31.5%
Communication Services	21.9%	1.2%
Consumer Cyclical	13.8%	12.5%
Industrials	1.3%	32.9%
Financial Services	0.1%	-
Basic Materials	0.1%	9.0%
Consumer Defensive	-	0.8%
Energy	-	3.9%
Healthcare	-	4.4%
Real Estate	-	3.7%
Utilities	-	2.1%

Return for Risk

CQQQ vs. MCHS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CQQQ

CQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 28
CQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
CQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
CQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 30
CQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
CQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 24

MCHS

MCHS Risk / Return Rank: 90
MCHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
MCHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
MCHS Omega Ratio Rank: 88
MCHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
MCHS Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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. MCHS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) and Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS). 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	MCHS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.11	3.30	-2.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.68	4.11	-2.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.55	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.35	6.17	-4.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.16	18.64	-15.48
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. MCHS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CQQQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.11, which is lower than the MCHS Sharpe Ratio of 3.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CQQQ and MCHS, 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	MCHS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.11	3.30	-2.19
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.20	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.16	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.19	1.21	-1.03

Drawdowns

CQQQ vs. MCHS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CQQQ drawdown since its inception was -73.99%, which is greater than MCHS's maximum drawdown of -23.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CQQQ and MCHS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CQQQ	MCHS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-73.99%	-23.75%	-50.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.41%	-12.15%	-12.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.93%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-66.96%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-73.99%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-49.18%	-3.27%	-45.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.29%	-7.61%	-20.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.39%	4.02%	+6.37%

Volatility

CQQQ vs. MCHS - Volatility Comparison

Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a higher volatility of 11.60% compared to Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) at 10.80%. This indicates that CQQQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MCHS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CQQQ	MCHS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.60%	10.80%	+0.80%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.88%	18.20%	+3.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	29.78%	22.74%	+7.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	38.02%	28.24%	+9.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	33.30%	28.24%	+5.06%

CQQQ vs. MCHS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CQQQ has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is lower than MCHS's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

CQQQ vs. MCHS - Dividend Comparison

CQQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.11%, less than MCHS's 2.47% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	2.47%	3.56%	5.48%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CQQQ and MCHS in my portfolio?

CQQQ and MCHS have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CQQQ or MCHS?

CQQQ has higher volatility (11.60%) compared to MCHS (10.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CQQQ dropped -73.99% vs MCHS's -23.75%.

Which ETF is better, CQQQ or MCHS?

On 1-year performance, MCHS leads with 74.61% vs 32.76% for CQQQ. On fees, CQQQ is cheaper at 0.70% per year. On volatility, MCHS has been the lower-risk option at 10.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CQQQ or MCHS?

Over the 1-year period, MCHS has performed better with a 74.61% return vs 32.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CQQQ or MCHS?

CQQQ is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for MCHS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CQQQ or MCHS?

MCHS has the higher dividend yield at 2.47%, compared with 2.11% for CQQQ.

What is the main difference between CQQQ and MCHS?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for CQQQ and 0.89% for MCHS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.30 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.