JCHI vs. PCGG

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

JCHI (JPMorgan Active China ETF) and PCGG (Polen Capital Global Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - JCHI is a China Equities fund actively managed by JPMorgan, while PCGG is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Polen. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, JCHI returned 21.03% vs -4.12% for PCGG. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. JCHI charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for PCGG.

Performance

JCHI vs. PCGG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in JPMorgan Active China ETF (JCHI) and Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JCHI achieves a 2.43% return, which is significantly higher than PCGG's -5.56% return.

JCHI

• 1D: 2.81%
• 1M: 1.37%
• YTD: 2.43%
• 6M: 1.40%
• 1Y: 21.03%
• 3Y*: 9.46%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PCGG

• 1D: -0.93%
• 1M: 2.68%
• YTD: -5.56%
• 6M: -5.24%
• 1Y: -4.12%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

JCHI vs. PCGG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
JCHI JPMorgan Active China ETF	2.43%	27.66%	13.77%	-8.97%
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth ETF	-5.56%	1.62%	12.40%	4.01%

Correlation

The correlation between JCHI and PCGG is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 31, 2023	0.32

The correlation between JCHI and PCGG shifts across timeframes, from 0.32 (all time) to 0.44 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

JCHI vs. PCGG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	JCHI	PCGG
Consumer Cyclical	20.6%	9.4%
Financial Services	20.6%	17.5%
Technology	14.7%	40.1%
Communication Services	14.5%	15.8%
Industrials	10.7%	-
Basic Materials	6.7%	-
Healthcare	4.7%	13.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.1%	2.3%
Energy	3.3%	-
Real Estate	-	2.0%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

JCHI vs. PCGG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

JCHI

JCHI Risk / Return Rank: 31
JCHI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
JCHI Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
JCHI Omega Ratio Rank: 33
JCHI Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
JCHI Martin Ratio Rank: 26

PCGG

PCGG Risk / Return Rank: 6
PCGG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
PCGG Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
PCGG Omega Ratio Rank: 6
PCGG Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
PCGG Martin Ratio Rank: 7

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.

JCHI vs. PCGG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for JPMorgan Active China ETF (JCHI) and Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG). 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.

	JCHI	PCGG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.21	-0.27	+1.48
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.76	-0.27	+2.03
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	0.97	+0.25
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.52	-0.18	+1.70
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.72	-0.44	+4.16
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

JCHI vs. PCGG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JCHI Sharpe Ratio is 1.21, which is higher than the PCGG Sharpe Ratio of -0.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JCHI and PCGG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	JCHI	PCGG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.21	-0.27	+1.48
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.27	0.26	+0.02

Drawdowns

JCHI vs. PCGG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JCHI drawdown since its inception was -29.57%, which is greater than PCGG's maximum drawdown of -22.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JCHI and PCGG.

Drawdown Indicators

	JCHI	PCGG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.57%	-22.66%	-6.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.37%	-22.66%	+8.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.47%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.63%	-10.28%	+4.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.35%	-4.94%	-8.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.89%	9.10%	-3.21%

Volatility

JCHI vs. PCGG - Volatility Comparison

JPMorgan Active China ETF (JCHI) has a higher volatility of 6.02% compared to Polen Capital Global Growth ETF (PCGG) at 3.47%. This indicates that JCHI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PCGG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JCHI	PCGG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.02%	3.47%	+2.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.23%	12.00%	+0.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.51%	15.20%	+2.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.87%	16.62%	+8.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.87%	16.62%	+8.25%

JCHI vs. PCGG - Expense Ratio Comparison

JCHI has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than PCGG's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

JCHI vs. PCGG - Dividend Comparison

JCHI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%, while PCGG has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
JCHI JPMorgan Active China ETF	1.77%	1.81%	2.12%	2.13%
PCGG Polen Capital Global Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JCHI and PCGG in my portfolio?

JCHI and PCGG have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JCHI or PCGG?

JCHI has higher volatility (6.02%) compared to PCGG (3.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JCHI dropped -29.57% vs PCGG's -22.66%.

Which ETF is better, JCHI or PCGG?

On 1-year performance, JCHI leads with 21.03% vs -4.12% for PCGG. On fees, JCHI is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, PCGG has been the lower-risk option at 3.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JCHI or PCGG?

Over the 1-year period, JCHI has performed better with a 21.03% return vs -4.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JCHI or PCGG?

JCHI is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for PCGG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, JCHI or PCGG?

JCHI has the higher dividend yield at 1.77%, compared with 0.00% for PCGG.

What is the main difference between JCHI and PCGG?

JCHI is categorized as China Equities, while PCGG is Global Equities. They also come from different issuers: JPMorgan and Polen. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for JCHI and 0.85% for PCGG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

JCHI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.21 vs -0.27), 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.