FXC.AS vs. CQQQ

Last updated Jul 21, 2026

FXC.AS (iShares China Large Cap UCITS ETF) and CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) are both China Equities funds - FXC.AS tracks the MSCI China NR USD while CQQQ tracks the FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FXC.AS returned 1.63%/yr vs 4.05%/yr for CQQQ. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FXC.AS charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for CQQQ.

Performance

FXC.AS vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a €10,000 investment in iShares China Large Cap UCITS ETF (FXC.AS) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

FXC.AS 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, FXC.AS achieves a -8.13% return, which is significantly lower than CQQQ's -0.20% return. Over the past 10 years, FXC.AS has underperformed CQQQ with an annualized return of 1.63%, while CQQQ has yielded a comparatively higher 4.05% annualized return.

FXC.AS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 2.51%
• 6M: -11.22%
• YTD: -8.13%
• 1Y: -7.42%
• 3Y*: 8.80%
• 5Y*: -1.86%
• 10Y*: 1.63%
• ALL TIME*: -1.81%

CQQQ

• 1D: 0.43%
• 1M: -8.06%
• 6M: -9.91%
• YTD: -0.20%
• 1Y: 13.35%
• 3Y*: 8.45%
• 5Y*: -7.27%
• 10Y*: 4.05%
• ALL TIME*: 6.98%

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

FXC.AS vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FXC.AS iShares China Large Cap UCITS ETF	-8.13%	13.80%	38.37%	-15.83%	-16.25%	-13.60%	0.80%	15.49%	-7.49%	18.82%
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	-0.20%	18.95%	17.09%	-19.21%	-25.76%	-18.89%	44.37%	36.58%	-31.71%	52.89%

Correlation

The correlation between FXC.AS and CQQQ is 0.57, 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	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.68
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.73
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 8, 2009	0.67

The correlation between FXC.AS and CQQQ shifts across timeframes, from 0.57 (1 year) to 0.73 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

FXC.AS vs. CQQQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FXC.AS

FXC.AS Risk / Return Rank: 6
FXC.AS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
FXC.AS Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
FXC.AS Omega Ratio Rank: 6
FXC.AS Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
FXC.AS Martin Ratio Rank: 6

CQQQ

CQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 17
CQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
CQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
CQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 17
CQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
CQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 16

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.

FXC.AS vs. CQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares China Large Cap UCITS ETF (FXC.AS) 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.

	FXC.AS	CQQQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.40	0.43	-0.83
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.46	0.81	-1.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.95	1.10	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.35	0.58	-0.94
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.80	1.27	-2.07

FXC.AS vs. CQQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FXC.AS Sharpe Ratio is -0.40, which is lower than the CQQQ Sharpe Ratio of 0.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FXC.AS 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.

Drawdowns

FXC.AS vs. CQQQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FXC.AS drawdown since its inception was -68.25%, roughly equal to the maximum CQQQ drawdown of -70.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FXC.AS and CQQQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FXC.AS	CQQQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-68.25%	-70.82%	+2.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.97%	-22.97%	+2.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.79%	-34.70%	+6.91%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.19%	-60.78%	+16.59%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-53.92%	-70.82%	+16.90%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-29.45%	-48.99%	+19.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-37.57%	-25.65%	-11.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.27%	10.50%	-1.23%

Volatility

FXC.AS vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares China Large Cap UCITS ETF (FXC.AS) is 6.32%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 12.05%. This indicates that FXC.AS 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.

Volatility by Period

	FXC.AS	CQQQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.32%	12.05%	-5.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.26%	23.63%	-10.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.57%	31.22%	-12.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.26%	36.88%	-8.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.08%	32.81%	-7.73%

FXC.AS vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FXC.AS has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than CQQQ's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

FXC.AS vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison

FXC.AS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.81%, less than CQQQ's 2.23% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
FXC.AS iShares China Large Cap UCITS ETF	1.81%	1.79%	2.26%	2.51%	2.52%	1.79%	2.49%	2.47%	2.99%	2.39%	2.34%	2.62%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FXC.AS and CQQQ in my portfolio?

FXC.AS and CQQQ have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FXC.AS or CQQQ?

On fees, CQQQ is cheaper at 0.70% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FXC.AS or CQQQ?

CQQQ is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for FXC.AS.

What is the main difference between FXC.AS and CQQQ?

FXC.AS tracks MSCI China NR USD, while CQQQ tracks FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for FXC.AS and 0.70% for CQQQ.