CQQQ vs. PGJ
Compare and contrast key facts about Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) and Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ).
CQQQ and PGJ are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CQQQ is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the AlphaShares China Technology Index. It was launched on Dec 8, 2009. PGJ is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the Halter USX China Index. It was launched on Dec 9, 2004. Both CQQQ and PGJ are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
CQQQ vs. PGJ - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
CQQQ vs. PGJ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | -11.50% | 34.96% | 9.84% | -16.71% | -30.09% | -24.54% | 57.33% | 33.57% | -34.77% | 74.31% |
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | -10.28% | 13.66% | 5.91% | -2.38% | -24.50% | -42.87% | 54.24% | 32.18% | -29.51% | 60.27% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CQQQ achieves a -11.50% return, which is significantly lower than PGJ's -10.28% return. Over the past 10 years, CQQQ has outperformed PGJ with an annualized return of 3.76%, while PGJ has yielded a comparatively lower 0.18% annualized return.
CQQQ
- 1D
- 2.91%
- 1M
- -11.62%
- YTD
- -11.50%
- 6M
- -20.29%
- 1Y
- 6.15%
- 3Y*
- 0.59%
- 5Y*
- -10.73%
- 10Y*
- 3.76%
PGJ
- 1D
- 2.73%
- 1M
- -7.21%
- YTD
- -10.28%
- 6M
- -21.59%
- 1Y
- -10.12%
- 3Y*
- -1.02%
- 5Y*
- -14.91%
- 10Y*
- 0.18%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
CQQQ vs. PGJ - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both CQQQ and PGJ have an expense ratio of 0.70%.
Return for Risk
CQQQ vs. PGJ — Risk / Return Rank
CQQQ
PGJ
CQQQ vs. PGJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) and Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ). 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 | PGJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.19 | -0.37 | +0.56 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 0.51 | -0.35 | +0.85 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.06 | 0.96 | +0.11 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.23 | -0.41 | +0.64 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.63 | -0.99 | +1.63 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CQQQ | PGJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.19 | -0.37 | +0.56 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.29 | -0.34 | +0.06 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.11 | 0.00 | +0.11 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.16 | 0.12 | +0.04 |
Correlation
The correlation between CQQQ and PGJ is 0.86, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
CQQQ vs. PGJ - Dividend Comparison
CQQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.45%, less than PGJ's 3.53% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | 2.45% | 2.17% | 0.28% | 0.55% | 0.08% | 0.00% | 0.47% | 0.01% | 0.43% | 1.41% | 1.69% | 1.77% |
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | 3.53% | 3.38% | 4.70% | 2.50% | 0.84% | 0.00% | 0.30% | 0.17% | 0.31% | 2.05% | 1.94% | 0.37% |
Drawdowns
CQQQ vs. PGJ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CQQQ drawdown since its inception was -73.99%, smaller than the maximum PGJ drawdown of -78.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CQQQ and PGJ.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| CQQQ | PGJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -73.99% | -78.37% | +4.38% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -24.41% | -25.69% | +1.28% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -67.04% | -72.28% | +5.24% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -73.99% | -78.37% | +4.38% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -56.10% | -65.80% | +9.70% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -28.04% | -31.47% | +3.43% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.99% | 10.63% | -1.64% |
Volatility
CQQQ vs. PGJ - Volatility Comparison
Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a higher volatility of 10.60% compared to Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) at 7.88%. This indicates that CQQQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PGJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| CQQQ | PGJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.60% | 7.88% | +2.72% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 20.75% | 17.78% | +2.97% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 31.95% | 27.39% | +4.56% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 37.72% | 43.92% | -6.20% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 33.06% | 36.64% | -3.58% |