PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
KWEB vs. CQQQ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

KWEB vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF (KWEB) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KWEB achieves a -20.06% return, which is significantly lower than CQQQ's 2.46% return. Over the past 10 years, KWEB has underperformed CQQQ with an annualized return of 0.02%, while CQQQ has yielded a comparatively higher 5.40% annualized return.


KWEB

1D
-3.92%
1M
-4.79%
YTD
-20.06%
6M
-22.24%
1Y
-12.78%
3Y*
4.05%
5Y*
-14.28%
10Y*
0.02%

CQQQ

1D
-1.50%
1M
4.43%
YTD
2.46%
6M
5.43%
1Y
32.76%
3Y*
10.55%
5Y*
-7.50%
10Y*
5.40%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

KWEB vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
KWEB
KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF
-20.06%23.55%12.01%-9.06%-17.24%-49.01%58.23%29.92%-33.80%69.73%
CQQQ
Invesco China Technology ETF
2.46%34.96%9.84%-16.71%-30.09%-24.54%57.33%33.57%-34.77%74.31%

Correlation

The correlation between KWEB and CQQQ is 0.84, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.84

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

0.88

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

0.91

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

0.90

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 2, 2013

0.89

The correlation between KWEB and CQQQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

KWEB vs. CQQQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
KWEB
CQQQ

Consumer Cyclical

37.7%
13.8%

Communication Services

24.8%
21.9%

Technology

17.6%
58.2%

Healthcare

6.0%

-

Real Estate

5.2%

-

Industrials

3.1%
1.3%

Consumer Defensive

3.1%

-

Financial Services

2.2%
0.1%

Basic Materials

-

0.1%

Energy

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

KWEB
37.7%
CQQQ
13.8%

Communication Services

KWEB
24.8%
CQQQ
21.9%

Technology

KWEB
17.6%
CQQQ
58.2%

Healthcare

KWEB
6.0%
CQQQ

-

Real Estate

KWEB
5.2%
CQQQ

-

Industrials

KWEB
3.1%
CQQQ
1.3%

Consumer Defensive

KWEB
3.1%
CQQQ

-

Financial Services

KWEB
2.2%
CQQQ
0.1%

Basic Materials

KWEB

-

CQQQ
0.1%

Energy

KWEB

-

CQQQ

-

Utilities

KWEB

-

CQQQ

-

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

KWEB vs. CQQQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

KWEB
KWEB Risk / Return Rank: 55
Overall Rank
KWEB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
Sharpe Ratio Rank
KWEB Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
Sortino Ratio Rank
KWEB Omega Ratio Rank: 55
Omega Ratio Rank
KWEB Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
Calmar Ratio Rank
KWEB Martin Ratio Rank: 55
Martin Ratio Rank

CQQQ
CQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 2828
Overall Rank
CQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3030
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 3131
Sortino Ratio Rank
CQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 3030
Omega Ratio Rank
CQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 2727
Calmar Ratio Rank
CQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
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.

KWEB vs. CQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF (KWEB) 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.


KWEBCQQQDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.58

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.21

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.94

1.20

-0.26

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.38

1.35

-1.72

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.76

3.16

-3.92

KWEB vs. CQQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KWEB Sharpe Ratio is -0.47, which is lower than the CQQQ Sharpe Ratio of 1.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KWEB 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


KWEBCQQQDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.47

1.11

-1.58

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.00

0.16

-0.16

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.06

0.19

-0.13

Drawdowns

KWEB vs. CQQQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KWEB drawdown since its inception was -80.92%, which is greater than CQQQ's maximum drawdown of -73.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KWEB and CQQQ.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


KWEBCQQQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-80.92%

-73.99%

-6.93%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-34.13%

-24.41%

-9.72%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-34.13%

-35.93%

+1.80%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-72.17%

-66.96%

-5.21%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-80.92%

-73.99%

-6.93%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-68.52%

-49.18%

-19.34%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-35.24%

-28.29%

-6.95%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

16.85%

10.39%

+6.46%

Volatility

KWEB vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison

KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF (KWEB) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) have volatilities of 11.52% and 11.60%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


KWEBCQQQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

11.52%

11.60%

-0.08%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

20.11%

21.88%

-1.77%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

27.25%

29.78%

-2.53%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

47.67%

38.02%

+9.65%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

39.99%

33.30%

+6.69%

KWEB vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

KWEB has a 0.76% expense ratio, which is higher than CQQQ's 0.70% expense ratio.


Dividends

KWEB vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison

KWEB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.70%, more than CQQQ's 2.11% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CQQQ
Invesco China Technology ETF
2.11%2.17%0.28%0.55%0.08%0.00%0.47%0.01%0.43%1.41%1.69%1.77%
KWEB
KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF
7.70%6.16%3.51%1.71%0.00%7.07%0.29%0.08%3.40%0.58%1.19%0.46%

Frequently Asked Questions


KWEB and CQQQ have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CQQQ has higher volatility (11.60%) compared to KWEB (11.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KWEB dropped -80.92% vs CQQQ's -73.99%.

On 10-year performance, CQQQ leads with 5.40% vs 0.02% for KWEB. On fees, CQQQ is cheaper at 0.70% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, CQQQ has performed better with a 5.40% return vs 0.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

CQQQ is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.76% for KWEB.

KWEB has the higher dividend yield at 7.70%, compared with 2.11% for CQQQ.

KWEB tracks CSI Overseas China Internet, while CQQQ tracks AlphaShares China Technology Index. They also come from different issuers: CICC and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.76% for KWEB and 0.70% for CQQQ.

CQQQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.11 vs -0.47), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for KWEB 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