MCHN.L vs. EQGB.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

MCHN.L (Invesco MSCI China All Shares Connect UCITS ETF) and EQGB.L (Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - MCHN.L is a China Equities fund tracking the Invesco MSCI China All Shares Connect UCITS ETF, while EQGB.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, MCHN.L returned -3.50%/yr vs 13.69%/yr for EQGB.L. At a 0.45 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.35% expense ratio.

Performance

MCHN.L vs. EQGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco MSCI China All Shares Connect UCITS ETF (MCHN.L) and Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

MCHN.L is traded in USD, while EQGB.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the EQGB.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MCHN.L achieves a -4.19% return, which is significantly lower than EQGB.L's 15.85% return.

MCHN.L

• 1D: -1.16%
• 1M: -2.71%
• 6M: -8.31%
• YTD: -4.19%
• 1Y: 7.58%
• 3Y*: 8.96%
• 5Y*: -3.50%
• 10Y*: —

EQGB.L

• 1D: 0.42%
• 1M: -2.55%
• 6M: 16.22%
• YTD: 15.85%
• 1Y: 28.84%
• 3Y*: 24.58%
• 5Y*: 13.69%
• 10Y*: —

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

MCHN.L vs. EQGB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
MCHN.L Invesco MSCI China All Shares Connect UCITS ETF	-4.19%	28.12%	16.91%	-12.79%	-24.06%	-19.70%
EQGB.L Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc	15.85%	28.61%	24.02%	62.04%	-42.01%	23.16%

Correlation

The correlation between MCHN.L and EQGB.L is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.49
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.40
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 1, 2021	0.45

Return for Risk

MCHN.L vs. EQGB.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

MCHN.L

MCHN.L Risk / Return Rank: 16
MCHN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
MCHN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
MCHN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 15
MCHN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
MCHN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 16

EQGB.L

EQGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 58
EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
EQGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
EQGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 55
EQGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
EQGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

MCHN.L vs. EQGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco MSCI China All Shares Connect UCITS ETF (MCHN.L) and Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L). 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.

	MCHN.L	EQGB.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.39	1.46	-1.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.68	2.13	-1.46
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.25	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.59	1.92	-1.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.19	6.69	-5.50

MCHN.L vs. EQGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCHN.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.39, which is lower than the EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCHN.L and EQGB.L, 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

MCHN.L vs. EQGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCHN.L drawdown since its inception was -52.51%, which is greater than EQGB.L's maximum drawdown of -47.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCHN.L and EQGB.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCHN.L	EQGB.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.51%	-47.56%	-4.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.42%	-14.96%	+2.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.72%	-22.21%	-2.51%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-47.92%	-47.56%	-0.36%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.67%	-3.38%	-20.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.33%	-9.44%	-21.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.20%	4.30%	+1.90%

Volatility

MCHN.L vs. EQGB.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco MSCI China All Shares Connect UCITS ETF (MCHN.L) and Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) have volatilities of 6.18% and 6.39%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	MCHN.L	EQGB.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.18%	6.39%	-0.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.08%	15.70%	-1.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.87%	19.67%	-0.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.09%	24.96%	+1.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.71%	24.73%	+0.98%

MCHN.L vs. EQGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both MCHN.L and EQGB.L have an expense ratio of 0.35%.

Dividends

MCHN.L vs. EQGB.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither MCHN.L nor EQGB.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
EQGB.L Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	4.16%
MCHN.L Invesco MSCI China All Shares Connect UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MCHN.L and EQGB.L in my portfolio?

MCHN.L and EQGB.L have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, MCHN.L or EQGB.L?

Both ETFs have the same 0.35% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, MCHN.L or EQGB.L?

MCHN.L and EQGB.L have the same expense ratio: 0.35% per year.

What is the main difference between MCHN.L and EQGB.L?

MCHN.L is categorized as China Equities, while EQGB.L is Nasdaq-100. MCHN.L tracks Invesco MSCI China All Shares Connect UCITS ETF, while EQGB.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index.