KWEB vs. CQQQ
KWEB (KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF) and CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) are both China Equities funds - KWEB tracks the CSI Overseas China Internet Index while CQQQ tracks the FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, KWEB returned -0.57%/yr vs 5.85%/yr for CQQQ. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.70% expense ratio.
Performance
KWEB vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, KWEB achieves a -28.08% return, which is significantly lower than CQQQ's 2.98% return. Over the past 10 years, KWEB has underperformed CQQQ with an annualized return of -0.57%, while CQQQ has yielded a comparatively higher 5.85% annualized return.
KWEB
- 1D
- -2.24%
- 1M
- -8.99%
- YTD
- -28.08%
- 6M
- -29.18%
- 1Y
- -22.79%
- 3Y*
- 0.71%
- 5Y*
- -15.81%
- 10Y*
- -0.57%
CQQQ
- 1D
- -2.80%
- 1M
- 1.48%
- YTD
- 2.98%
- 6M
- 3.86%
- 1Y
- 28.75%
- 3Y*
- 11.40%
- 5Y*
- -7.83%
- 10Y*
- 5.85%
KWEB vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
KWEB KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF | -28.08% | 23.55% | 12.01% | -9.06% | -17.24% | -49.01% | 58.23% | 29.92% | -33.80% | 69.73% |
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | 2.98% | 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 0.81, 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 | 0.81 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.87 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.90 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.90 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2013 | 0.89 |
The correlation between KWEB and CQQQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.
KWEB vs. CQQQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
KWEB
CQQQ
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
Technology
Healthcare
-
Real Estate
-
Industrials
Consumer Defensive
-
Financial Services
Basic Materials
-
Energy
-
-
Utilities
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
KWEB
CQQQ
Communication Services
KWEB
CQQQ
Technology
KWEB
CQQQ
Healthcare
KWEB
CQQQ
-
Real Estate
KWEB
CQQQ
-
Industrials
KWEB
CQQQ
Consumer Defensive
KWEB
CQQQ
-
Financial Services
KWEB
CQQQ
Basic Materials
KWEB
-
CQQQ
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
KWEB
CQQQ
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.
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.
| KWEB | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.79 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.63 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.87 | 1.18 | -0.31 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.58 | 1.18 | -1.76 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.22 | 2.70 | -3.92 |
Loading charts...
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
| KWEB | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -80.92% | -73.99% | -6.93% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -39.49% | -24.41% | -15.08% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -39.49% | -35.93% | -3.56% |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -71.68% | -48.92% | -22.76% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -35.36% | -28.35% | -7.01% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 18.70% | 10.68% | +8.02% |
Volatility
KWEB vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF (KWEB) is 8.34%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 10.74%. This indicates that KWEB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CQQQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| KWEB | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.34% | 10.74% | -2.40% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 20.47% | 23.33% | -2.86% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.17% | 30.65% | -3.48% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 47.70% | 38.16% | +9.54% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 40.00% | 33.38% | +6.62% |
KWEB vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both KWEB and CQQQ have an expense ratio of 0.70%.
Dividends
KWEB vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison
KWEB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.56%, more than CQQQ's 2.10% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | 2.10% | 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 | 8.56% | 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 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CQQQ has higher volatility (10.74%) compared to KWEB (8.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KWEB dropped -80.92% vs CQQQ's -73.99%.
On 10-year performance, CQQQ leads with 5.85% vs -0.57% for KWEB. Both ETFs have the same 0.70% expense ratio. On volatility, KWEB has been the lower-risk option at 8.34%. 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 5.85% return vs -0.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
KWEB and CQQQ have the same expense ratio: 0.70% per year.
KWEB has the higher dividend yield at 8.56%, compared with 2.10% for CQQQ.
KWEB tracks CSI Overseas China Internet Index, while CQQQ tracks FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: KraneShares and Invesco.
CQQQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.94 vs -0.84), 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 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