PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
EMBE.L vs. CQQQ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

EMBE.L vs. CQQQ

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

EMBE.L (iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist)) and CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMBE.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the JPM EMBI Global Diversified Hedge TR EUR, while CQQQ is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EMBE.L returned 0.91%/yr vs 4.86%/yr for CQQQ. At a 0.23 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMBE.L charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for CQQQ.

Performance

EMBE.L vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a €10,000 investment in iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist) (EMBE.L) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

EMBE.L is traded in EUR, while CQQQ is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the CQQQ values have been converted to EUR using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMBE.L achieves a 0.41% return, which is significantly higher than CQQQ's -0.98% return. Over the past 10 years, EMBE.L has underperformed CQQQ with an annualized return of 0.91%, while CQQQ has yielded a comparatively higher 4.86% annualized return.

EMBE.L

1D
-0.01%
1M
-0.47%
YTD
0.41%
6M
1.14%
1Y
8.54%
3Y*
7.20%
5Y*
-0.58%
10Y*
0.91%

CQQQ

1D
-1.19%
1M
-3.69%
YTD
-0.98%
6M
-2.27%
1Y
19.43%
3Y*
6.07%
5Y*
-7.25%
10Y*
4.86%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMBE.L vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EMBE.L
iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist)		0.41%10.99%4.00%7.66%-20.86%-3.27%3.35%12.27%-8.40%8.13%
CQQQ
Invesco China Technology ETF		-0.98%18.95%17.09%-19.21%-25.76%-18.89%44.37%36.58%-31.71%52.89%

Correlation

The correlation between EMBE.L and CQQQ is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.30

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.18

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.18

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.23

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 9, 2013

0.23

The correlation between EMBE.L and CQQQ shifts across timeframes, from 0.18 (5 years) to 0.30 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EMBE.L vs. CQQQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
EMBE.L
CQQQ

Basic Materials

-

0.1%

Communication Services

-

21.9%

Consumer Cyclical

-

13.8%

Consumer Defensive

-

-

Energy

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

1.3%

Real Estate

-

-

Technology

-

58.2%

Utilities

-

-

Financial Services

-0.3%
0.1%

Basic Materials

EMBE.L

-

CQQQ
0.1%

Communication Services

EMBE.L

-

CQQQ
21.9%

Consumer Cyclical

EMBE.L

-

CQQQ
13.8%

Consumer Defensive

EMBE.L

-

CQQQ

-

Energy

EMBE.L

-

CQQQ

-

Healthcare

EMBE.L

-

CQQQ

-

Industrials

EMBE.L

-

CQQQ
1.3%

Real Estate

EMBE.L

-

CQQQ

-

Technology

EMBE.L

-

CQQQ
58.2%

Utilities

EMBE.L

-

CQQQ

-

Financial Services

EMBE.L
-0.3%
CQQQ
0.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist)

Invesco China Technology ETF

Often compared with EMBE.L:
EMBE.L vs. EMBEMBE.L vs. CEMBEMBE.L vs. SEMB.LEMBE.L vs. XUHY.LEMBE.L vs. VWOBEMBE.L vs. PCYEMBE.L vs. JEPQ
Often compared with CQQQ:
CQQQ vs. KWEBCQQQ vs. MCHICQQQ vs. FXICQQQ vs. TCHICQQQ vs. VOOCQQQ vs. PGJCQQQ vs. CWEB

Return for Risk

EMBE.L vs. CQQQ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
EMBE.L
EMBE.L Risk / Return Rank: 4747
Overall Rank
EMBE.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4646
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMBE.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMBE.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4848
Omega Ratio Rank
EMBE.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4141
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMBE.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4747
Martin Ratio Rank
CQQQ
CQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 2222
Overall Rank
CQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2222
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 2323
Sortino Ratio Rank
CQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 2323
Omega Ratio Rank
CQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 2121
Calmar Ratio Rank
CQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 1919
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

EMBE.L vs. CQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist) (EMBE.L) 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.

EMBE.LCQQQDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.45
0.67

+0.78

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.32
1.12

+1.20

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

1.14

+0.14

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.86

0.85

+1.01

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.12

1.91

+5.22

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMBE.L vs. CQQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMBE.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.45, which is higher than the CQQQ Sharpe Ratio of 0.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMBE.L 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

EMBE.LCQQQDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.45

0.67

+0.78

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.07

-0.20

+0.13

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.10

0.15

-0.05

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.23

0.23

0.00

Drawdowns

EMBE.L vs. CQQQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMBE.L drawdown since its inception was -30.73%, smaller than the maximum CQQQ drawdown of -70.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMBE.L and CQQQ.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EMBE.LCQQQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-30.73%

-70.82%

+40.09%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.58%

-22.97%

+18.39%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.94%

-34.70%

+26.76%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-30.46%

-63.57%

+33.11%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-30.73%

-70.82%

+40.09%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.47%

-49.38%

+44.91%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.39%

-25.52%

+18.13%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.20%

10.21%

-9.01%

Volatility

EMBE.L vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist) (EMBE.L) is 2.07%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 11.14%. This indicates that EMBE.L 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

EMBE.LCQQQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.07%

11.14%

-9.07%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.85%

21.38%

-16.53%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.89%

29.25%

-23.36%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.89%

36.60%

-27.71%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

9.48%

32.59%

-23.11%

EMBE.L vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMBE.L has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than CQQQ's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMBE.L vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison

EMBE.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.66%, more than CQQQ's 2.23% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CQQQ
Invesco China Technology ETF		2.23%2.17%0.28%0.55%0.08%0.00%0.47%0.01%0.43%1.41%1.69%1.77%
EMBE.L
iShares J.P. Morgan USD EM Bond EUR Hedged UCITS ETF (Dist)		5.66%5.44%5.64%5.50%5.39%3.92%3.85%4.77%5.75%3.88%5.36%4.72%

Frequently Asked Questions

EMBE.L and CQQQ have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, EMBE.L is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

EMBE.L is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for CQQQ.

EMBE.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while CQQQ is China Equities. EMBE.L tracks JPM EMBI Global Diversified Hedge TR EUR, while CQQQ tracks FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EMBE.L and 0.70% for CQQQ.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMBE.L 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