PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

IEEM.L vs. CQQQ

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IEEM.L (iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (Dist)) and CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IEEM.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM NR USD, 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, IEEM.L returned 11.54%/yr vs 5.65%/yr for CQQQ. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IEEM.L charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for CQQQ.

Performance

IEEM.L vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (Dist) (IEEM.L) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IEEM.L achieves a 25.90% return, which is significantly higher than CQQQ's -0.72% return. Over the past 10 years, IEEM.L has outperformed CQQQ with an annualized return of 11.54%, while CQQQ has yielded a comparatively lower 5.65% annualized return.

IEEM.L

1D
-1.34%
1M
3.99%
YTD
25.90%
6M
26.73%
1Y
54.02%
3Y*
21.65%
5Y*
9.24%
10Y*
11.54%

CQQQ

1D
-4.46%
1M
-2.73%
YTD
-0.72%
6M
-1.35%
1Y
24.92%
3Y*
6.48%
5Y*
-7.16%
10Y*
5.65%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IEEM.L vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IEEM.L
iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (Dist)		25.90%26.66%9.88%3.86%-9.90%-1.38%15.96%12.64%-9.08%25.04%
CQQQ
Invesco China Technology ETF		-0.72%25.35%11.76%-20.88%-21.78%-23.82%52.71%28.49%-30.90%59.24%

Correlation

The correlation between IEEM.L and CQQQ is 0.55, 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

0.55

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

0.58

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

0.64

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

0.65

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 9, 2009

0.62

The correlation between IEEM.L and CQQQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

IEEM.L vs. CQQQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IEEM.L
CQQQ

Technology

36.8%
58.2%

Financial Services

19.5%
0.1%

Consumer Cyclical

9.5%
13.8%

Industrials

7.5%
1.3%

Communication Services

6.9%
21.9%

Basic Materials

6.5%
0.1%

Energy

4.1%

-

Consumer Defensive

3.0%

-

Healthcare

2.9%

-

Utilities

2.1%

-

Real Estate

1.1%

-

Technology

IEEM.L
36.8%
CQQQ
58.2%

Financial Services

IEEM.L
19.5%
CQQQ
0.1%

Consumer Cyclical

IEEM.L
9.5%
CQQQ
13.8%

Industrials

IEEM.L
7.5%
CQQQ
1.3%

Communication Services

IEEM.L
6.9%
CQQQ
21.9%

Basic Materials

IEEM.L
6.5%
CQQQ
0.1%

Energy

IEEM.L
4.1%
CQQQ

-

Consumer Defensive

IEEM.L
3.0%
CQQQ

-

Healthcare

IEEM.L
2.9%
CQQQ

-

Utilities

IEEM.L
2.1%
CQQQ

-

Real Estate

IEEM.L
1.1%
CQQQ

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (Dist)

Invesco China Technology ETF

Often compared with IEEM.L:
IEEM.L vs. EIMI.LIEEM.L vs. VFEM.DEIEEM.L vs. HMEF.LIEEM.L vs. ISP6.LIEEM.L vs. 36B5.DEIEEM.L vs. VFEG.LIEEM.L vs. VOO
Often compared with CQQQ:
CQQQ vs. KWEBCQQQ vs. MCHICQQQ vs. FXICQQQ vs. TCHICQQQ vs. VOOCQQQ vs. PGJCQQQ vs. CWEB

Return for Risk

IEEM.L vs. CQQQ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IEEM.L
IEEM.L Risk / Return Rank: 8989
Overall Rank
IEEM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IEEM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9090
Sortino Ratio Rank
IEEM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9191
Omega Ratio Rank
IEEM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
IEEM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
Martin Ratio Rank
CQQQ
CQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 2222
Overall Rank
CQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2323
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 2424
Sortino Ratio Rank
CQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 2323
Omega Ratio Rank
CQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 2121
Calmar Ratio Rank
CQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (Dist) (IEEM.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.

IEEM.LCQQQDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
3.23
0.88

+2.35

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
4.13
1.39

+2.74

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.60

1.17

+0.43

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.93

1.09

+3.84

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

17.58

2.45

+15.13

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

IEEM.L vs. CQQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IEEM.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.23, which is higher than the CQQQ Sharpe Ratio of 0.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IEEM.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

IEEM.LCQQQDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.23

0.88

+2.35

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.57

-0.20

+0.76

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.64

0.17

+0.46

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.41

0.23

+0.18

Drawdowns

IEEM.L vs. CQQQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IEEM.L drawdown since its inception was -53.22%, smaller than the maximum CQQQ drawdown of -71.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IEEM.L and CQQQ.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IEEM.LCQQQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-53.22%

-71.37%

+18.15%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.12%

-22.88%

+11.76%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.47%

-34.87%

+19.40%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-23.27%

-63.79%

+40.52%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-26.63%

-71.37%

+44.74%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.43%

-49.19%

+46.76%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.41%

-26.11%

+15.70%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.13%

10.18%

-7.05%

Volatility

IEEM.L vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (Dist) (IEEM.L) is 7.42%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 10.84%. This indicates that IEEM.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

IEEM.LCQQQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.42%

10.84%

-3.42%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.55%

20.74%

-6.19%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.03%

28.55%

-11.52%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.32%

36.25%

-19.93%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.11%

32.41%

-14.30%

IEEM.L vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

IEEM.L has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than CQQQ's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

IEEM.L vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison

IEEM.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.01%, less than CQQQ's 2.20% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
IEEM.L
iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (Dist)		2.01%2.48%2.86%2.91%3.40%2.74%1.98%2.32%2.51%1.86%2.09%3.38%

Frequently Asked Questions

IEEM.L and CQQQ have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, IEEM.L is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

IEEM.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for CQQQ.

IEEM.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while CQQQ is China Equities. IEEM.L tracks MSCI EM 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: 0.18% for IEEM.L and 0.70% for CQQQ.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IEEM.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