EWG vs. CQQQ
EWG (iShares MSCI Germany ETF) and CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EWG is a Europe Equities fund tracking the MSCI Germany Index, 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, EWG returned 8.18%/yr vs 5.36%/yr for CQQQ. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EWG charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for CQQQ.
Performance
EWG vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EWG achieves a -0.45% return, which is significantly higher than CQQQ's -1.35% return. Over the past 10 years, EWG has outperformed CQQQ with an annualized return of 8.18%, while CQQQ has yielded a comparatively lower 5.36% annualized return.
EWG
- 1D
- 0.09%
- 1M
- 0.36%
- YTD
- -0.45%
- 6M
- 0.31%
- 1Y
- 1.88%
- 3Y*
- 15.78%
- 5Y*
- 5.72%
- 10Y*
- 8.18%
CQQQ
- 1D
- -1.27%
- 1M
- -8.85%
- YTD
- -1.35%
- 6M
- -0.24%
- 1Y
- 21.23%
- 3Y*
- 8.01%
- 5Y*
- -8.12%
- 10Y*
- 5.36%
EWG vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EWG iShares MSCI Germany ETF | -0.45% | 35.79% | 9.79% | 23.35% | -22.27% | 5.84% | 10.09% | 19.15% | -21.40% | 27.42% |
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | -1.35% | 34.96% | 9.84% | -16.71% | -30.09% | -24.54% | 57.33% | 33.57% | -34.77% | 74.31% |
Correlation
The correlation between EWG and CQQQ is 0.50, 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 | 0.50 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.43 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.45 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.50 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 8, 2009 | 0.52 |
The correlation between EWG and CQQQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.43 to 0.52 - a consistent structural relationship.
EWG vs. CQQQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
EWG
CQQQ
Industrials
Financial Services
Technology
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
Healthcare
-
Basic Materials
Utilities
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Real Estate
-
Energy
-
-
Industrials
EWG
CQQQ
Financial Services
EWG
CQQQ
Technology
EWG
CQQQ
Consumer Cyclical
EWG
CQQQ
Communication Services
EWG
CQQQ
Healthcare
EWG
CQQQ
-
Basic Materials
EWG
CQQQ
Utilities
EWG
CQQQ
-
Consumer Defensive
EWG
CQQQ
-
Real Estate
EWG
CQQQ
-
Energy
EWG
-
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
EWG vs. CQQQ — Risk / Return Rank
EWG
CQQQ
EWG vs. CQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Germany ETF (EWG) 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.
| EWG | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.60 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.91 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.03 | 1.14 | -0.11 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.13 | 0.87 | -0.74 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.38 | 2.01 | -1.63 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EWG vs. CQQQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EWG drawdown since its inception was -67.57%, smaller than the maximum CQQQ drawdown of -73.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EWG and CQQQ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EWG | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -67.57% | -73.99% | +6.42% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -14.54% | -24.41% | +9.87% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.81% | -35.93% | +20.12% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -43.23% | -66.96% | +23.73% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -46.80% | -73.99% | +27.19% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.05% | -51.07% | +46.02% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -19.18% | -28.32% | +9.14% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.97% | 10.60% | -5.63% |
Volatility
EWG vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares MSCI Germany ETF (EWG) is 6.22%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 10.63%. This indicates that EWG 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
| EWG | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.22% | 10.63% | -4.41% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.61% | 22.55% | -7.94% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.66% | 30.20% | -12.54% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.54% | 38.09% | -17.55% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.10% | 33.33% | -12.23% |
EWG vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
EWG has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than CQQQ's 0.70% expense ratio.
Dividends
EWG vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison
EWG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.61%, less than CQQQ's 2.20% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | 2.20% | 2.17% | 0.28% | 0.55% | 0.08% | 0.00% | 0.47% | 0.01% | 0.43% | 1.41% | 1.69% | 1.77% |
EWG iShares MSCI Germany ETF | 1.61% | 1.60% | 2.38% | 2.56% | 3.24% | 2.70% | 1.67% | 2.51% | 2.93% | 2.06% | 2.35% | 1.93% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EWG and CQQQ have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CQQQ has higher volatility (10.63%) compared to EWG (6.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EWG dropped -67.57% vs CQQQ's -73.99%.
On 10-year performance, EWG leads with 8.18% vs 5.36% for CQQQ. On fees, EWG is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, EWG has been the lower-risk option at 6.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, EWG has performed better with a 8.18% return vs 5.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EWG is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for CQQQ.
CQQQ has the higher dividend yield at 2.20%, compared with 1.61% for EWG.
EWG is categorized as Europe Equities, while CQQQ is China Equities. EWG tracks MSCI Germany 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: 0.49% for EWG and 0.70% for CQQQ.
CQQQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.71 vs 0.11), 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.
Find the right allocation for EWG 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