MCHS vs. PGJ

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MCHS (Matthews China Discovery Active ETF) and PGJ (Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF) are both China Equities funds. MCHS is actively managed, while PGJ is passively managed. Over the past year, MCHS returned 73.11% vs -7.05% for PGJ. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MCHS charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for PGJ.

Performance

MCHS vs. PGJ - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MCHS achieves a 45.47% return, which is significantly higher than PGJ's -11.48% return.

MCHS

• 1D: 0.95%
• 1M: 9.15%
• YTD: 45.47%
• 6M: 46.87%
• 1Y: 73.11%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PGJ

• 1D: -0.55%
• 1M: -4.23%
• YTD: -11.48%
• 6M: -13.73%
• 1Y: -7.05%
• 3Y*: 2.92%
• 5Y*: -13.73%
• 10Y*: 0.21%

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

MCHS vs. PGJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	45.47%	31.19%	6.53%
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF	-11.48%	13.66%	13.35%

Correlation

The correlation between MCHS and PGJ is 0.52, 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	0.52
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 12, 2024	0.69

The correlation between MCHS and PGJ shifts across timeframes, from 0.52 (1 year) to 0.69 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MCHS vs. PGJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MCHS	PGJ
Industrials	32.9%	6.5%
Technology	31.5%	16.2%
Consumer Cyclical	12.5%	44.8%
Basic Materials	9.0%	-
Healthcare	4.4%	0.8%
Energy	3.9%	2.3%
Real Estate	3.7%	3.1%
Utilities	2.1%	-
Communication Services	1.2%	14.5%
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	7.6%
Financial Services	-	3.6%

Return for Risk

MCHS vs. PGJ — Risk / Return Rank

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

MCHS

MCHS Risk / Return Rank: 90
MCHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
MCHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
MCHS Omega Ratio Rank: 88
MCHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
MCHS Martin Ratio Rank: 87

PGJ

PGJ Risk / Return Rank: 6
PGJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
PGJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
PGJ Omega Ratio Rank: 6
PGJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
PGJ Martin Ratio Rank: 7

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. PGJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	MCHS	PGJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.24	-0.29	+3.53
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.05	-0.26	+4.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	0.97	+0.58
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.05	-0.28	+6.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.25	-0.52	+18.77
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MCHS vs. PGJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCHS Sharpe Ratio is 3.24, which is higher than the PGJ Sharpe Ratio of -0.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCHS and PGJ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MCHS	PGJ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.24	-0.29	+3.53
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.32	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.01	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.23	0.12	+1.11

Drawdowns

MCHS vs. PGJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCHS drawdown since its inception was -23.75%, smaller than the maximum PGJ drawdown of -78.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCHS and PGJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCHS	PGJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.75%	-78.37%	+54.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.15%	-25.69%	+13.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-30.82%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-70.00%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-78.37%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.35%	-66.25%	+63.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.60%	-31.74%	+24.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.02%	13.49%	-9.47%

Volatility

MCHS vs. PGJ - Volatility Comparison

Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) has a higher volatility of 10.81% compared to Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) at 8.54%. This indicates that MCHS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PGJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MCHS	PGJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.81%	8.54%	+2.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.21%	17.28%	+0.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.75%	24.46%	-1.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.22%	43.73%	-15.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.22%	36.69%	-8.47%

MCHS vs. PGJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

MCHS vs. PGJ - Dividend Comparison

MCHS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.45%, less than PGJ's 3.58% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	2.45%	3.56%	5.48%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF	3.58%	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

Can I hold both MCHS and PGJ in my portfolio?

MCHS and PGJ have a correlation of 0.52, 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 PGJ?

MCHS has higher volatility (10.81%) compared to PGJ (8.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCHS dropped -23.75% vs PGJ's -78.37%.

Which ETF is better, MCHS or PGJ?

On 1-year performance, MCHS leads with 73.11% vs -7.05% for PGJ. On fees, PGJ is cheaper at 0.70% per year. On volatility, PGJ has been the lower-risk option at 8.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MCHS or PGJ?

Over the 1-year period, MCHS has performed better with a 73.11% return vs -7.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MCHS or PGJ?

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

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

PGJ has the higher dividend yield at 3.58%, compared with 2.45% for MCHS.

What is the main difference between MCHS and PGJ?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.24 vs -0.29), 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.