PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ECNS vs. CQQQ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ECNS vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF (ECNS) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ECNS achieves a -10.59% return, which is significantly lower than CQQQ's -3.27% return. Over the past 10 years, ECNS has underperformed CQQQ with an annualized return of 1.20%, while CQQQ has yielded a comparatively higher 4.48% annualized return.


ECNS

1D
0.56%
1M
1.76%
6M
-16.80%
YTD
-10.59%
1Y
-10.39%
3Y*
3.18%
5Y*
-6.56%
10Y*
1.20%
ALL TIME*
0.23%

CQQQ

1D
1.31%
1M
-6.83%
6M
-9.86%
YTD
-3.27%
1Y
11.64%
3Y*
6.42%
5Y*
-6.40%
10Y*
4.48%
ALL TIME*
5.34%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$60.75M$69.64M$78.22M
$190.49K$201.78K$417.63K

ECNS vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ECNS
iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF
-10.59%36.49%5.64%-23.05%-24.58%2.11%25.42%7.84%-18.27%27.55%
CQQQ
Invesco China Technology ETF
-3.27%34.96%9.84%-16.71%-30.09%-24.54%57.33%33.57%-34.77%74.31%

Correlation

The correlation between ECNS and CQQQ is 0.67, 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.

0.67

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.78

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.80

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.77

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2010

0.74

The correlation between ECNS and CQQQ shifts across timeframes, from 0.67 (1 year) to 0.80 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ECNS vs. CQQQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ECNS
CQQQ

Healthcare

21.2%

-

Industrials

20.1%
1.2%

Technology

10.7%
57.0%

Basic Materials

9.2%
0.1%

Communication Services

8.7%
24.7%

Consumer Cyclical

8.4%
16.5%

Real Estate

8.0%

-

Consumer Defensive

5.3%

-

Financial Services

4.4%
0.5%

Utilities

2.3%

-

Energy

1.8%

-

Healthcare

ECNS
21.2%
CQQQ

-

Industrials

ECNS
20.1%
CQQQ
1.2%

Technology

ECNS
10.7%
CQQQ
57.0%

Basic Materials

ECNS
9.2%
CQQQ
0.1%

Communication Services

ECNS
8.7%
CQQQ
24.7%

Consumer Cyclical

ECNS
8.4%
CQQQ
16.5%

Real Estate

ECNS
8.0%
CQQQ

-

Consumer Defensive

ECNS
5.3%
CQQQ

-

Financial Services

ECNS
4.4%
CQQQ
0.5%

Utilities

ECNS
2.3%
CQQQ

-

Energy

ECNS
1.8%
CQQQ

-

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

ECNS vs. CQQQ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

ECNS
ECNS Risk / Return Rank: 55
Overall Rank
ECNS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ECNS Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
Sortino Ratio Rank
ECNS Omega Ratio Rank: 44
Omega Ratio Rank
ECNS Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
Calmar Ratio Rank
ECNS Martin Ratio Rank: 55
Martin Ratio Rank

CQQQ
CQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 1818
Overall Rank
CQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1818
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 1919
Sortino Ratio Rank
CQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 1919
Omega Ratio Rank
CQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 1818
Calmar Ratio Rank
CQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 1717
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

ECNS vs. CQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF (ECNS) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ). 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.


ECNSCQQQDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.88

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.33

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.92

1.08

-0.16

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.47

0.41

-0.87

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.93

0.88

-1.81

ECNS vs. CQQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ECNS Sharpe Ratio is -0.58, which is lower than the CQQQ Sharpe Ratio of 0.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ECNS and CQQQ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

ECNS vs. CQQQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ECNS drawdown since its inception was -63.43%, smaller than the maximum CQQQ drawdown of -73.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ECNS and CQQQ.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ECNSCQQQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-63.43%

-73.99%

+10.56%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-25.73%

-24.41%

-1.32%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-29.29%

-34.42%

+5.13%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-57.31%

-62.09%

+4.78%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-63.43%

-73.99%

+10.56%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-42.44%

-52.02%

+9.58%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-29.51%

-28.49%

-1.02%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

12.93%

11.28%

+1.65%

Volatility

ECNS vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF (ECNS) is 6.39%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 12.09%. This indicates that ECNS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CQQQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ECNSCQQQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.39%

12.09%

-5.70%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.32%

24.80%

-10.48%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.97%

32.54%

-11.57%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

29.09%

38.19%

-9.10%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.82%

33.56%

-7.74%

ECNS vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

ECNS has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than CQQQ's 0.70% expense ratio.


Dividends

ECNS vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison

ECNS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.58%, more than CQQQ's 2.24% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CQQQ
Invesco China Technology ETF
2.24%2.17%0.28%0.55%0.08%0.00%0.47%0.01%0.43%1.41%1.69%1.77%
ECNS
iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF
6.58%6.20%5.98%4.89%3.54%4.87%3.59%3.23%6.16%3.18%4.29%3.58%

Frequently Asked Questions


ECNS and CQQQ have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CQQQ has higher volatility (12.09%) compared to ECNS (6.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ECNS dropped -63.43% vs CQQQ's -73.99%.

On 10-year performance, CQQQ leads with 4.48% vs 1.20% for ECNS. On fees, ECNS is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, ECNS has been the lower-risk option at 6.39%. 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 4.48% return vs 1.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ECNS is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for CQQQ.

ECNS has the higher dividend yield at 6.58%, compared with 2.24% for CQQQ.

ECNS tracks MSCI China Small Cap Index, while CQQQ tracks FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for ECNS and 0.70% for CQQQ.

CQQQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.30 vs -0.58), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ECNS and CQQQ

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