MCHS vs. CQQQ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MCHS (Matthews China Discovery Active ETF) and CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) are both China Equities funds. MCHS is actively managed, while CQQQ is passively managed. Over the past year, MCHS returned 81.12% vs 28.75% for CQQQ. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MCHS charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for CQQQ.

Performance

MCHS vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) 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, MCHS achieves a 51.63% return, which is significantly higher than CQQQ's 2.98% return.

MCHS

• 1D: -4.50%
• 1M: 6.46%
• YTD: 51.63%
• 6M: 50.45%
• 1Y: 81.12%
• 3Y*: —
• 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)

MCHS vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	51.63%	31.19%	6.53%
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	2.98%	34.96%	20.98%

Correlation

The correlation between MCHS and CQQQ is 0.68, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2024	0.77

The correlation between MCHS and CQQQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

MCHS vs. CQQQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MCHS	CQQQ
Technology	49.7%	61.0%
Industrials	27.8%	1.3%
Basic Materials	8.1%	0.1%
Energy	6.3%	-
Consumer Cyclical	4.5%	13.0%
Utilities	2.1%	-
Healthcare	2.1%	-
Real Estate	1.6%	-
Communication Services	1.2%	20.6%
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	-
Financial Services	-	8.5%

Return for Risk

MCHS vs. CQQQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

MCHS

MCHS Risk / Return Rank: 92
MCHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
MCHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
MCHS Omega Ratio Rank: 91
MCHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
MCHS Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

MCHS vs. CQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	MCHS	CQQQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.25	0.94	+2.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.94	1.48	+2.46
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	1.18	+0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.71	1.18	+5.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.57	2.70	+16.87

MCHS vs. CQQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCHS Sharpe Ratio is 3.25, which is higher than the CQQQ Sharpe Ratio of 0.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCHS 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

MCHS vs. CQQQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCHS drawdown since its inception was -23.75%, smaller than the maximum CQQQ drawdown of -73.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCHS and CQQQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCHS	CQQQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.75%	-73.99%	+50.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.15%	-24.41%	+12.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-35.93%	—
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	-4.50%	-48.92%	+44.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.53%	-28.35%	+20.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.16%	10.68%	-6.52%

Volatility

MCHS vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison

Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) has a higher volatility of 13.48% compared to Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) at 10.74%. This indicates that MCHS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CQQQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MCHS	CQQQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.48%	10.74%	+2.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.61%	23.33%	-1.72%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.11%	30.65%	-5.54%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.95%	38.16%	-9.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.95%	33.38%	-4.43%

MCHS vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

MCHS has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than CQQQ's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

MCHS vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison

MCHS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.35%, 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%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	2.35%	3.56%	5.48%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MCHS and CQQQ in my portfolio?

MCHS and CQQQ have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MCHS or CQQQ?

MCHS has higher volatility (13.48%) compared to CQQQ (10.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCHS dropped -23.75% vs CQQQ's -73.99%.

Which ETF is better, MCHS or CQQQ?

On 1-year performance, MCHS leads with 81.12% vs 28.75% for CQQQ. On fees, CQQQ is cheaper at 0.70% per year. On volatility, CQQQ has been the lower-risk option at 10.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MCHS or CQQQ?

Over the 1-year period, MCHS has performed better with a 81.12% return vs 28.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MCHS or CQQQ?

CQQQ is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for MCHS.

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

MCHS has the higher dividend yield at 2.35%, compared with 2.10% for CQQQ.

What is the main difference between MCHS and CQQQ?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for MCHS and 0.70% for CQQQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.25 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.