PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
MCHS vs. CQQQ
Performance
Return for Risk
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility

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.

Loading graphics...

MCHS vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024
MCHS
Matthews China Discovery Active ETF
13.36%31.19%6.53%
CQQQ
Invesco China Technology ETF
-11.77%34.96%18.72%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MCHS achieves a 13.36% return, which is significantly higher than CQQQ's -11.77% return.


MCHS

1D
2.32%
1M
-9.45%
YTD
13.36%
6M
9.20%
1Y
35.12%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

CQQQ

1D
-0.30%
1M
-10.16%
YTD
-11.77%
6M
-21.47%
1Y
5.59%
3Y*
0.49%
5Y*
-10.79%
10Y*
3.73%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


MCHS vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


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: 7373
Overall Rank
MCHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MCHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
MCHS Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
MCHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
MCHS Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
Martin Ratio Rank

CQQQ
CQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 1717
Overall Rank
CQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1616
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 1818
Sortino Ratio Rank
CQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 1717
Omega Ratio Rank
CQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 1717
Calmar Ratio Rank
CQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 1616
Martin Ratio Rank
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.


MCHSCQQQDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.37

0.18

+1.20

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

1.94

0.48

+1.46

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.06

+0.23

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

2.23

0.24

+1.99

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

8.17

0.64

+7.53

MCHS vs. CQQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCHS Sharpe Ratio is 1.37, which is higher than the CQQQ Sharpe Ratio of 0.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCHS and CQQQ, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.


Loading graphics...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


MCHSCQQQDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.37

0.18

+1.20

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.29

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.11

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.83

0.16

+0.68

Correlation

The correlation between MCHS and CQQQ is 0.78, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.


Dividends

MCHS vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison

MCHS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.14%, more than CQQQ's 2.45% yield.


TTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
MCHS
Matthews China Discovery Active ETF
3.14%3.56%5.48%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
CQQQ
Invesco China Technology ETF
2.45%2.17%0.28%0.55%0.08%0.00%0.47%0.01%0.43%1.41%1.69%1.77%

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.


Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators


MCHSCQQQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-23.75%

-73.99%

+50.24%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-15.89%

-24.41%

+8.52%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-67.04%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-73.99%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-9.45%

-56.24%

+46.79%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.98%

-28.05%

+20.07%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.34%

9.10%

-4.76%

Volatility

MCHS vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) is 7.12%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 9.50%. This indicates that MCHS 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 graphics...

Volatility by Period


MCHSCQQQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.12%

9.50%

-2.38%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.31%

20.69%

-5.38%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

25.73%

31.94%

-6.21%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

27.87%

37.70%

-9.83%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

27.87%

33.05%

-5.18%