EQGB.L vs. MCTS.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

EQGB.L (Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc) and MCTS.L (Invesco MSCI China Technology All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - EQGB.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while MCTS.L is a Technology Equities fund tracking the MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EQGB.L returned 27.25%/yr vs 10.05%/yr for MCTS.L. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EQGB.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for MCTS.L.

Performance

EQGB.L vs. MCTS.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) and Invesco MSCI China Technology All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc (MCTS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EQGB.L achieves a 18.86% return, which is significantly higher than MCTS.L's 2.74% return.

EQGB.L

• 1D: -0.71%
• 1M: 8.42%
• YTD: 18.86%
• 6M: 18.41%
• 1Y: 39.13%
• 3Y*: 27.25%
• 5Y*: 16.35%
• 10Y*: —

MCTS.L

• 1D: -0.56%
• 1M: 3.20%
• YTD: 2.74%
• 6M: 1.09%
• 1Y: 19.04%
• 3Y*: 10.05%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EQGB.L vs. MCTS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EQGB.L Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc	18.86%	19.59%	26.12%	53.92%	-35.07%	16.56%
MCTS.L Invesco MSCI China Technology All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc	2.74%	23.52%	22.51%	-23.51%	-22.15%	-14.72%

Correlation

The correlation between EQGB.L and MCTS.L is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.35
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 16, 2021	0.32

EQGB.L vs. MCTS.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EQGB.L	MCTS.L
Technology	53.6%	30.3%
Communication Services	15.8%	15.7%
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	24.0%
Consumer Defensive	7.7%	0.2%
Healthcare	4.2%	2.4%
Industrials	3.1%	14.3%
Utilities	1.4%	4.3%
Basic Materials	1.1%	6.6%
Energy	0.6%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	1.6%
Real Estate	0.1%	0.8%

Return for Risk

EQGB.L vs. MCTS.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

EQGB.L

EQGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 73
EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
EQGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
EQGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 72
EQGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
EQGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 68

MCTS.L

MCTS.L Risk / Return Rank: 18
MCTS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
MCTS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
MCTS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 28
MCTS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
MCTS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 13

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.

EQGB.L vs. MCTS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) and Invesco MSCI China Technology All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc (MCTS.L). 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.

	EQGB.L	MCTS.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.46	0.41	+2.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.41	1.01	+2.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.19	+0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.44	0.54	+2.90
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.32	0.82	+11.50
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EQGB.L vs. MCTS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.46, which is higher than the MCTS.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EQGB.L and MCTS.L, 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

	EQGB.L	MCTS.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.46	0.41	+2.06
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.78	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.91	-0.11	+1.02

Drawdowns

EQGB.L vs. MCTS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EQGB.L drawdown since its inception was -36.77%, smaller than the maximum MCTS.L drawdown of -59.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EQGB.L and MCTS.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	EQGB.L	MCTS.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.77%	-59.88%	+23.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.33%	-35.37%	+24.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.76%	-35.37%	+12.61%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-36.77%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.81%	-27.96%	+27.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.52%	-36.22%	+28.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.17%	23.12%	-19.95%

Volatility

EQGB.L vs. MCTS.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) is 4.92%, while Invesco MSCI China Technology All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc (MCTS.L) has a volatility of 8.34%. This indicates that EQGB.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MCTS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EQGB.L	MCTS.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.92%	8.34%	-3.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.88%	14.92%	-3.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.81%	46.61%	-30.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.95%	44.13%	-23.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.25%	44.13%	-22.88%

EQGB.L vs. MCTS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EQGB.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than MCTS.L's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

EQGB.L vs. MCTS.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither EQGB.L nor MCTS.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
EQGB.L Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.04%
MCTS.L Invesco MSCI China Technology All Shares Stock Connect UCITS ETF Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EQGB.L and MCTS.L in my portfolio?

EQGB.L and MCTS.L have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, EQGB.L or MCTS.L?

On fees, EQGB.L is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, EQGB.L or MCTS.L?

EQGB.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for MCTS.L.

What is the main difference between EQGB.L and MCTS.L?

EQGB.L is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while MCTS.L is Technology Equities. EQGB.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while MCTS.L tracks MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for EQGB.L and 0.49% for MCTS.L.