CQQQ vs. PGJ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) and PGJ (Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF) are both China Equities funds from Invesco - CQQQ tracks the FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index while PGJ tracks the Halter USX China Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CQQQ returned 5.85%/yr vs -0.09%/yr for PGJ. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.70% expense ratio.

Performance

CQQQ vs. PGJ - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CQQQ achieves a 2.98% return, which is significantly higher than PGJ's -20.19% return. Over the past 10 years, CQQQ has outperformed PGJ with an annualized return of 5.85%, while PGJ has yielded a comparatively lower -0.09% annualized return.

CQQQ

• 1D: -2.80%
• 1M: 1.48%
• YTD: 2.98%
• 6M: 3.86%
• 1Y: 28.75%
• 3Y*: 11.40%
• 5Y*: -7.83%
• 10Y*: 5.85%

PGJ

• 1D: -0.56%
• 1M: -8.64%
• YTD: -20.19%
• 6M: -21.38%
• 1Y: -15.49%
• 3Y*: -0.89%
• 5Y*: -15.22%
• 10Y*: -0.09%

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

CQQQ vs. PGJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	2.98%	34.96%	9.84%	-16.71%	-30.09%	-24.54%	57.33%	33.57%	-34.77%	74.31%
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF	-20.19%	13.66%	5.91%	-2.38%	-24.50%	-42.87%	54.24%	32.18%	-29.51%	60.27%

Correlation

The correlation between CQQQ and PGJ is 0.73, 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	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.82
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.87
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 8, 2009	0.85

The correlation between CQQQ and PGJ shifts across timeframes, from 0.73 (1 year) to 0.87 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CQQQ vs. PGJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CQQQ	PGJ
Technology	61.0%	11.4%
Communication Services	20.6%	26.3%
Consumer Cyclical	13.0%	44.4%
Financial Services	8.5%	3.9%
Industrials	1.3%	2.6%
Basic Materials	0.1%	-
Consumer Defensive	-	7.6%
Energy	-	2.1%
Healthcare	-	0.7%
Real Estate	-	3.1%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

CQQQ vs. PGJ — Risk / Return Rank

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

CQQQ

CQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 26
CQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
CQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
CQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 27
CQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
CQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 22

PGJ

PGJ Risk / Return Rank: 4
PGJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
PGJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
PGJ Omega Ratio Rank: 4
PGJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
PGJ Martin Ratio Rank: 4

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. 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.

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	PGJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.94	-0.64	+1.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.48	-0.80	+2.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	0.91	+0.27
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.18	-0.48	+1.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.70	-1.04	+3.74

CQQQ vs. PGJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CQQQ Sharpe Ratio is 0.94, which is higher than the PGJ Sharpe Ratio of -0.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CQQQ and PGJ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	CQQQ	PGJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-73.99%	-78.37%	+4.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.41%	-32.09%	+7.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.93%	-32.09%	-3.84%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-66.96%	-70.00%	+3.04%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-73.99%	-78.37%	+4.38%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-48.92%	-69.57%	+20.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.35%	-31.82%	+3.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.68%	14.90%	-4.22%

Volatility

CQQQ vs. PGJ - Volatility Comparison

Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a higher volatility of 10.74% compared to Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) at 6.43%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	CQQQ	PGJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.74%	6.43%	+4.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.33%	17.61%	+5.72%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.65%	24.43%	+6.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	38.16%	43.76%	-5.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	33.38%	36.71%	-3.33%

CQQQ vs. PGJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both CQQQ and PGJ have an expense ratio of 0.70%.

Dividends

CQQQ vs. PGJ - Dividend Comparison

CQQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.10%, less than PGJ's 3.34% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	2.10%	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	3.34%	3.38%	4.70%	2.50%	0.84%	0.00%	0.30%	0.17%	0.31%	2.05%	1.94%	0.37%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CQQQ and PGJ in my portfolio?

CQQQ and PGJ have a correlation of 0.73, 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 PGJ?

CQQQ has higher volatility (10.74%) compared to PGJ (6.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CQQQ dropped -73.99% vs PGJ's -78.37%.

Which ETF is better, CQQQ or PGJ?

On 10-year performance, CQQQ leads with 5.85% vs -0.09% for PGJ. Both ETFs have the same 0.70% expense ratio. On volatility, PGJ has been the lower-risk option at 6.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CQQQ or PGJ?

Over the 10-year period, CQQQ has performed better with a 5.85% return vs -0.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CQQQ or PGJ?

CQQQ and PGJ have the same expense ratio: 0.70% per year.

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

PGJ has the higher dividend yield at 3.34%, compared with 2.10% for CQQQ.

What is the main difference between CQQQ and PGJ?

CQQQ tracks FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index, while PGJ tracks Halter USX China Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CQQQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.94 vs -0.64), 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.