MCHI vs. PGJ
MCHI (iShares MSCI China ETF) and PGJ (Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF) are both China Equities funds - MCHI tracks the MSCI China Index while PGJ tracks the Halter USX China Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, MCHI returned 4.06%/yr vs -0.01%/yr for PGJ. Their correlation of 0.82 means they have usually moved in the same direction. MCHI charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for PGJ.
Performance
MCHI vs. PGJ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MCHI achieves a -6.01% return, which is significantly higher than PGJ's -10.85% return. Over the past 10 years, MCHI has outperformed PGJ with an annualized return of 4.06%, while PGJ has yielded a comparatively lower -0.01% annualized return.
MCHI
- 1D
- 0.34%
- 1M
- 10.17%
- 6M
- -7.55%
- YTD
- -6.01%
- 1Y
- -0.55%
- 3Y*
- 8.08%
- 5Y*
- -2.78%
- 10Y*
- 4.06%
- ALL TIME*
- 2.52%
PGJ
- 1D
- -0.22%
- 1M
- 12.14%
- 6M
- -11.91%
- YTD
- -10.85%
- 1Y
- -9.19%
- 3Y*
- -2.52%
- 5Y*
- -9.34%
- 10Y*
- -0.01%
- ALL TIME*
- 4.05%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $131.82M | $143.06M | $173.02M | |
| $621.06K | $575.44K | $704.05K |
MCHI vs. PGJ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MCHI iShares MSCI China ETF | -6.01% | 31.04% | 17.73% | -11.94% | -23.01% | -21.74% | 27.78% | 23.72% | -19.79% | 54.67% |
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | -10.85% | 13.66% | 5.91% | -2.38% | -24.50% | -42.87% | 54.24% | 32.18% | -29.51% | 60.27% |
Correlation
The correlation between MCHI and PGJ is 0.86, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.86 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.89 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.91 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.87 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 31, 2011 | 0.82 |
The correlation between MCHI and PGJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.
MCHI vs. PGJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
MCHI
PGJ
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
Financial Services
Technology
Industrials
Healthcare
Basic Materials
Energy
Consumer Defensive
Utilities
-
Real Estate
Consumer Cyclical
MCHI
PGJ
Communication Services
MCHI
PGJ
Financial Services
MCHI
PGJ
Technology
MCHI
PGJ
Industrials
MCHI
PGJ
Healthcare
MCHI
PGJ
Basic Materials
MCHI
PGJ
Energy
MCHI
PGJ
Consumer Defensive
MCHI
PGJ
Utilities
MCHI
PGJ
-
Real Estate
MCHI
PGJ
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
MCHI vs. PGJ — Risk / Return Rank
MCHI
PGJ
MCHI vs. PGJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China ETF (MCHI) 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.
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.
| MCHI | PGJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.34 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.48 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.01 | 0.96 | +0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.02 | -0.26 | +0.24 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.05 | -0.51 | +0.46 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MCHI vs. PGJ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MCHI drawdown since its inception was -62.95%, smaller than the maximum PGJ drawdown of -78.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCHI and PGJ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MCHI | PGJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -62.95% | -78.37% | +15.42% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -23.22% | -35.08% | +11.86% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -25.35% | -35.08% | +9.73% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -51.41% | -62.75% | +11.34% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -62.95% | -78.37% | +15.42% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -35.91% | -66.01% | +30.10% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -24.68% | -32.01% | +7.33% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.34% | 17.93% | -6.59% |
Volatility
MCHI vs. PGJ - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares MSCI China ETF (MCHI) is 5.01%, while Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) has a volatility of 6.07%. This indicates that MCHI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PGJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MCHI | PGJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.01% | 6.07% | -1.06% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.41% | 17.69% | -3.28% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.55% | 24.91% | -4.36% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 30.40% | 43.15% | -12.75% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.35% | 36.75% | -9.40% |
MCHI vs. PGJ - Expense Ratio Comparison
MCHI has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than PGJ's 0.70% expense ratio.
Dividends
MCHI vs. PGJ - Dividend Comparison
MCHI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.95%, less than PGJ's 2.99% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MCHI iShares MSCI China ETF | 1.95% | 2.12% | 2.31% | 2.66% | 1.78% | 1.04% | 1.04% | 1.45% | 1.60% | 1.56% | 1.66% | 2.76% |
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | 2.99% | 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
MCHI and PGJ have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
PGJ has higher volatility (6.07%) compared to MCHI (5.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCHI dropped -62.95% vs PGJ's -78.37%.
On 10-year performance, MCHI leads with 4.06% vs -0.01% for PGJ. On fees, MCHI is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, MCHI has been the lower-risk option at 5.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, MCHI has performed better with a 4.06% return vs -0.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
MCHI is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for PGJ.
PGJ has the higher dividend yield at 2.99%, compared with 1.95% for MCHI.
MCHI tracks MSCI China Index, while PGJ tracks Halter USX China Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for MCHI and 0.70% for PGJ.
MCHI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.03 vs -0.37), 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 MCHI 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