MCH vs. CQQQ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MCH (Matthews China Active ETF) and CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) are both China Equities funds. MCH is actively managed, while CQQQ is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MCH returned 13.78%/yr vs 11.40%/yr for CQQQ. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MCH charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for CQQQ.

Performance

MCH vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MCH achieves a 3.54% return, which is significantly higher than CQQQ's 2.98% return.

MCH

• 1D: -2.85%
• 1M: 0.40%
• YTD: 3.54%
• 6M: 2.21%
• 1Y: 23.79%
• 3Y*: 13.78%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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%

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

MCH vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
MCH Matthews China Active ETF	3.54%	30.20%	17.32%	-19.91%	-3.57%
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	2.98%	34.96%	9.84%	-16.71%	-6.57%

Correlation

The correlation between MCH and CQQQ is 0.83, 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	0.83
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2022	0.90

The correlation between MCH and CQQQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

MCH vs. CQQQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MCH	CQQQ
Financial Services	20.7%	8.5%
Technology	17.5%	61.0%
Industrials	17.0%	1.3%
Consumer Cyclical	13.3%	13.0%
Communication Services	12.2%	20.6%
Basic Materials	7.0%	0.1%
Healthcare	4.4%	-
Real Estate	2.9%	-
Energy	0.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	0.6%	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

MCH vs. CQQQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

MCH

MCH Risk / Return Rank: 33
MCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
MCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
MCH Omega Ratio Rank: 32
MCH Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
MCH Martin Ratio Rank: 31

CQQQ

CQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 26
CQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
CQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
CQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 27
CQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
CQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 22

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.

MCH vs. CQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews China Active ETF (MCH) 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.

	MCH	CQQQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.14	0.94	+0.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.68	1.48	+0.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.18	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.59	1.18	+0.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.20	2.70	+1.50

MCH vs. CQQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCH Sharpe Ratio is 1.14, which is comparable to the CQQQ Sharpe Ratio of 0.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCH 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.

Drawdowns

MCH vs. CQQQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCH drawdown since its inception was -40.53%, smaller than the maximum CQQQ drawdown of -73.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCH and CQQQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCH	CQQQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.53%	-73.99%	+33.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.05%	-24.41%	+9.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.57%	-35.93%	+5.36%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-66.96%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-73.99%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.82%	-48.92%	+45.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.31%	-28.35%	+10.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.68%	10.68%	-5.00%

Volatility

MCH vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Matthews China Active ETF (MCH) is 8.12%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 10.74%. This indicates that MCH 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.

Volatility by Period

	MCH	CQQQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.12%	10.74%	-2.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.66%	23.33%	-7.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.89%	30.65%	-9.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.51%	38.16%	-8.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.51%	33.38%	-3.87%

MCH vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

MCH has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than CQQQ's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

MCH vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison

MCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.70%, less 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%
MCH Matthews China Active ETF	1.70%	1.76%	1.31%	1.62%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MCH and CQQQ in my portfolio?

MCH and CQQQ have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MCH or CQQQ?

CQQQ has higher volatility (10.74%) compared to MCH (8.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCH dropped -40.53% vs CQQQ's -73.99%.

Which ETF is better, MCH or CQQQ?

On 3-year performance, MCH leads with 13.78% vs 11.40% for CQQQ. On fees, CQQQ is cheaper at 0.70% per year. On volatility, MCH has been the lower-risk option at 8.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MCH or CQQQ?

Over the 3-year period, MCH has performed better with a 13.78% return vs 11.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MCH or CQQQ?

CQQQ is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for MCH.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MCH or CQQQ?

CQQQ has the higher dividend yield at 2.10%, compared with 1.70% for MCH.

What is the main difference between MCH and CQQQ?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for MCH and 0.70% for CQQQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.14 vs 0.94), 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.