ISVBF vs. PGJ
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) and Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ).
ISVBF and PGJ are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. ISVBF is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI China A Inclusion Index. It was launched on Apr 8, 2015. PGJ is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the Halter USX China Index. It was launched on Dec 9, 2004. Both ISVBF and PGJ are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
ISVBF vs. PGJ - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
ISVBF vs. PGJ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | -6.48% | 30.64% | 18.96% | -9.28% | -23.01% | -22.12% |
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | -9.88% | 13.66% | 5.91% | -2.38% | -24.50% | -40.21% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ISVBF achieves a -6.48% return, which is significantly higher than PGJ's -9.88% return.
ISVBF
- 1D
- 0.60%
- 1M
- -4.98%
- YTD
- -6.48%
- 6M
- -13.49%
- 1Y
- 6.38%
- 3Y*
- 8.03%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PGJ
- 1D
- 0.44%
- 1M
- -5.61%
- YTD
- -9.88%
- 6M
- -22.40%
- 1Y
- -10.26%
- 3Y*
- -0.87%
- 5Y*
- -14.84%
- 10Y*
- 0.23%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
ISVBF vs. PGJ - Expense Ratio Comparison
ISVBF has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than PGJ's 0.70% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
ISVBF vs. PGJ — Risk / Return Rank
ISVBF
PGJ
ISVBF vs. PGJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) and Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ). 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.
| ISVBF | PGJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.20 | -0.38 | +0.58 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 0.49 | -0.36 | +0.85 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.07 | 0.96 | +0.11 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.33 | -0.38 | +0.71 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.98 | -0.91 | +1.89 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ISVBF | PGJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.20 | -0.38 | +0.58 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | -0.34 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.01 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.16 | 0.12 | -0.28 |
Correlation
The correlation between ISVBF and PGJ is 0.29, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.
Dividends
ISVBF vs. PGJ - Dividend Comparison
ISVBF has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PGJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.51%.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | 3.51% | 3.38% | 4.70% | 2.50% | 0.84% | 0.00% | 0.30% | 0.17% | 0.31% | 2.05% | 1.94% | 0.37% |
Drawdowns
ISVBF vs. PGJ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ISVBF drawdown since its inception was -53.78%, smaller than the maximum PGJ drawdown of -78.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ISVBF and PGJ.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| ISVBF | PGJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -53.78% | -78.37% | +24.59% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -19.18% | -25.69% | +6.51% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -72.28% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -78.37% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.20% | -65.65% | +41.45% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -33.12% | -31.47% | -1.65% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.49% | 10.73% | -4.24% |
Volatility
ISVBF vs. PGJ - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) has a higher volatility of 17.49% compared to Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) at 7.25%. This indicates that ISVBF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PGJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| ISVBF | PGJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 17.49% | 7.25% | +10.24% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 24.96% | 17.78% | +7.18% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 31.35% | 27.39% | +3.96% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 30.03% | 43.90% | -13.87% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 30.03% | 36.63% | -6.60% |