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 -5.62%/yr vs -13.73%/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 -8.72% return, which is significantly higher than PGJ's -11.48% return.
ISVBF
- 1D
- -2.42%
- 1M
- -4.76%
- YTD
- -8.72%
- 6M
- -10.61%
- 1Y
- 2.82%
- 3Y*
- 9.05%
- 5Y*
- -5.62%
- 10Y*
- —
PGJ
- 1D
- -0.55%
- 1M
- -4.23%
- YTD
- -11.48%
- 6M
- -13.73%
- 1Y
- -7.05%
- 3Y*
- 2.92%
- 5Y*
- -13.73%
- 10Y*
- 0.21%
ISVBF vs. PGJ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | -8.72% | 30.64% | 18.96% | -9.28% | -23.01% | -22.12% |
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | -11.48% | 13.66% | 5.91% | -2.38% | -24.50% | -40.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between ISVBF and PGJ is 0.59, 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 | 0.59 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.45 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.30 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 6, 2021 | 0.30 |
Over the past year, ISVBF and PGJ have become more correlated (0.59) 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.
| ISVBF | PGJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.38 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.60 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.04 | 0.97 | +0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.15 | -0.28 | +0.42 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.34 | -0.52 | +0.86 |
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 charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ISVBF | PGJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.09 | -0.29 | +0.38 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.19 | -0.32 | +0.13 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.01 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.17 | 0.12 | -0.28 |
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 | -19.18% | -25.69% | +6.51% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.77% | -30.82% | +7.05% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -53.22% | -70.00% | +16.78% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -78.37% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -26.01% | -66.25% | +40.24% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -32.76% | -31.74% | -1.02% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.28% | 13.49% | -5.21% |
Volatility
ISVBF vs. PGJ - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) has a higher volatility of 11.06% compared to Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) at 8.54%. 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 | 11.06% | 8.54% | +2.52% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 26.63% | 17.28% | +9.35% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 30.67% | 24.46% | +6.21% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 30.21% | 43.73% | -13.52% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 30.21% | 36.69% | -6.48% |
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 3.58%.
| 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 | 3.58% | 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 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ISVBF has higher volatility (11.06%) compared to PGJ (8.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ISVBF dropped -53.78% vs PGJ's -78.37%.
On 5-year performance, ISVBF leads with -5.62% vs -13.73% for PGJ. On fees, ISVBF is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, PGJ has been the lower-risk option at 8.54%. 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 -5.62% return vs -13.73%. 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 3.58%, 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 (0.09 vs -0.29), 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