FXP vs. CQQQ
FXP (ProShares UltraShort FTSE China 50) and CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) are both China Equities funds - FXP tracks the FTSE China 50 Net Tax USD (TR) (-200%) while CQQQ tracks the FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FXP returned -22.26%/yr vs 4.11%/yr for CQQQ. Their -0.80 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. FXP charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for CQQQ.
Performance
FXP vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FXP achieves a 5.71% return, which is significantly higher than CQQQ's -3.48% return. Over the past 10 years, FXP has underperformed CQQQ with an annualized return of -22.26%, while CQQQ has yielded a comparatively higher 4.11% annualized return.
FXP
- 1D
- 0.50%
- 1M
- -24.31%
- 6M
- 11.53%
- YTD
- 5.71%
- 1Y
- -4.88%
- 3Y*
- -28.07%
- 5Y*
- -20.84%
- 10Y*
- -22.26%
- ALL TIME*
- -28.47%
CQQQ
- 1D
- -0.22%
- 1M
- -7.04%
- 6M
- -8.51%
- YTD
- -3.48%
- 1Y
- 11.40%
- 3Y*
- 6.47%
- 5Y*
- -6.42%
- 10Y*
- 4.11%
- ALL TIME*
- 5.32%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $59.60M | $63.86M | $78.89M | |
| $93.60K | $89.25K | $94.70K |
FXP vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FXP ProShares UltraShort FTSE China 50 | 5.71% | -45.32% | -52.46% | 12.74% | -11.73% | 23.56% | -39.47% | -29.01% | 12.45% | -49.76% |
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | -3.48% | 34.96% | 9.84% | -16.71% | -30.09% | -24.54% | 57.33% | 33.57% | -34.77% | 74.31% |
Correlation
The correlation between FXP and CQQQ is -0.66, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.66 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | -0.78 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | -0.85 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | -0.84 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 8, 2009 | -0.80 |
The correlation between FXP and CQQQ shifts across timeframes, from -0.85 (5 years) to -0.66 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
FXP vs. CQQQ — Risk / Return Rank
FXP
CQQQ
FXP vs. CQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares UltraShort FTSE China 50 (FXP) 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.
| FXP | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.47 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.61 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.01 | 1.09 | -0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.19 | 0.47 | -0.66 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.42 | 1.01 | -1.43 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FXP vs. CQQQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FXP drawdown since its inception was -99.94%, which is greater than CQQQ's maximum drawdown of -73.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FXP and CQQQ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FXP | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -99.94% | -73.99% | -25.95% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -25.65% | -24.41% | -1.24% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -82.34% | -34.42% | -47.92% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -87.85% | -62.09% | -25.76% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -93.56% | -73.99% | -19.57% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -99.92% | -52.13% | -47.79% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -94.18% | -28.49% | -65.69% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 12.80% | 11.32% | +1.48% |
Volatility
FXP vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison
ProShares UltraShort FTSE China 50 (FXP) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) have volatilities of 11.12% and 10.99%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FXP | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.12% | 10.99% | +0.13% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 29.50% | 24.73% | +4.77% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 40.68% | 32.53% | +8.15% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 62.74% | 38.18% | +24.56% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 54.82% | 33.57% | +21.25% |
FXP vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
FXP has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than CQQQ's 0.70% expense ratio.
Dividends
FXP vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison
FXP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.40%, more than CQQQ's 2.24% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
FXP ProShares UltraShort FTSE China 50 | 3.40% | 9.57% | 3.55% | 2.20% | 0.06% | 0.00% | 0.06% | 1.20% | 0.16% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FXP and CQQQ have a correlation of -0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FXP has higher volatility (11.12%) compared to CQQQ (10.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FXP dropped -99.94% vs CQQQ's -73.99%.
On 10-year performance, CQQQ leads with 4.11% vs -22.26% for FXP. On fees, CQQQ is cheaper at 0.70% per year. On volatility, CQQQ has been the lower-risk option at 10.99%. 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 4.11% return vs -22.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CQQQ is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for FXP.
FXP has the higher dividend yield at 3.40%, compared with 2.24% for CQQQ.
FXP tracks FTSE China 50 Net Tax USD (TR) (-200%), while CQQQ tracks FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for FXP and 0.70% for CQQQ.
CQQQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.35 vs -0.12), 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 FXP 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