ISVBF vs. PGJ
ISVBF (iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF) and PGJ (Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF) are both China Equities funds - ISVBF tracks the MSCI China A Inclusion Index while PGJ tracks the Halter USX China Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ISVBF returned -5.86%/yr vs -12.61%/yr for PGJ. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ISVBF charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for PGJ.
Performance
ISVBF vs. PGJ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ISVBF achieves a -11.22% return, which is significantly higher than PGJ's -15.55% return.
ISVBF
- 1D
- -2.45%
- 1M
- -0.50%
- 6M
- -14.17%
- YTD
- -11.22%
- 1Y
- -4.49%
- 3Y*
- 7.64%
- 5Y*
- -5.86%
- 10Y*
- —
PGJ
- 1D
- -1.70%
- 1M
- 2.84%
- 6M
- -17.69%
- YTD
- -15.55%
- 1Y
- -16.64%
- 3Y*
- -1.10%
- 5Y*
- -12.61%
- 10Y*
- -0.16%
ISVBF vs. PGJ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | -11.22% | 30.64% | 18.96% | -9.28% | -23.01% | -22.12% |
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | -15.55% | 13.66% | 5.91% | -2.38% | -24.50% | -40.68% |
Correlation
The correlation between ISVBF and PGJ is 0.58, 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 | 0.58 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.47 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.30 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2021 | 0.30 |
Over the past year, ISVBF and PGJ have become more correlated (0.58) than their long-term average of 0.30, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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
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.
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.
| ISVBF | PGJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.53 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.88 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.00 | 0.91 | +0.10 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.19 | -0.48 | +0.29 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.42 | -0.98 | +0.56 |
Loading charts...
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 charts...
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 | -24.14% | -35.08% | +10.94% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.14% | -35.08% | +10.94% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -52.51% | -66.49% | +13.98% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -78.37% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -28.04% | -67.81% | +39.77% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -32.63% | -31.94% | -0.69% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.62% | 16.96% | -6.34% |
Volatility
ISVBF vs. PGJ - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) has a higher volatility of 7.79% compared to Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) at 7.38%. 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 charts...
Volatility by Period
| ISVBF | PGJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.79% | 7.38% | +0.41% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 27.11% | 17.54% | +9.57% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 31.54% | 24.84% | +6.70% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 30.47% | 43.68% | -13.21% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 30.12% | 36.73% | -6.61% |
ISVBF vs. PGJ - Expense Ratio Comparison
ISVBF has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than PGJ's 0.70% expense ratio.
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 3.16%.
| Position | 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 | 3.16% | 3.38% | 4.70% | 2.50% | 0.84% | 0.00% | 0.30% | 0.17% | 0.31% | 2.05% | 1.94% | 0.37% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ISVBF and PGJ have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ISVBF has higher volatility (7.79%) compared to PGJ (7.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ISVBF dropped -53.78% vs PGJ's -78.37%.
On 5-year performance, ISVBF leads with -5.86% vs -12.61% for PGJ. On fees, ISVBF is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, PGJ has been the lower-risk option at 7.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, ISVBF has performed better with a -5.86% return vs -12.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ISVBF is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for PGJ.
PGJ has the higher dividend yield at 3.16%, compared with 0.00% for ISVBF.
ISVBF tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index, while PGJ tracks Halter USX China Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for ISVBF and 0.70% for PGJ.
ISVBF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.14 vs -0.67), 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 ISVBF and PGJ
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