NBCE vs. PGJ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

NBCE (Neuberger Berman China Equity ETF) and PGJ (Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF) are both China Equities funds. NBCE is actively managed, while PGJ is passively managed. Over the past year, NBCE returned 68.17% vs -15.49% for PGJ. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. NBCE charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for PGJ.

Performance

NBCE vs. PGJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Neuberger Berman China Equity ETF (NBCE) 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, NBCE achieves a 32.09% return, which is significantly higher than PGJ's -20.19% return.

NBCE

• 1D: -3.12%
• 1M: 7.62%
• YTD: 32.09%
• 6M: 32.92%
• 1Y: 68.17%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PGJ

• 1D: -0.56%
• 1M: -8.64%
• YTD: -20.19%
• 6M: -21.38%
• 1Y: -15.49%
• 3Y*: -0.89%
• 5Y*: -15.22%
• 10Y*: -0.09%

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

NBCE vs. PGJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
NBCE Neuberger Berman China Equity ETF	32.09%	39.08%	3.35%	-2.22%
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF	-20.19%	13.66%	5.91%	0.38%

Correlation

The correlation between NBCE and PGJ is 0.51, 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	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 16, 2023	0.63

The correlation between NBCE and PGJ shifts across timeframes, from 0.51 (1 year) to 0.63 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

NBCE vs. PGJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NBCE	PGJ
Technology	33.7%	11.4%
Industrials	17.7%	2.6%
Financial Services	14.0%	3.9%
Basic Materials	11.7%	-
Consumer Cyclical	6.8%	44.4%
Consumer Defensive	4.3%	7.6%
Healthcare	4.2%	0.7%
Energy	3.7%	2.1%
Utilities	1.6%	-
Real Estate	1.5%	3.1%
Communication Services	0.9%	26.3%

Return for Risk

NBCE vs. PGJ — Risk / Return Rank

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

NBCE

NBCE Risk / Return Rank: 94
NBCE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
NBCE Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
NBCE Omega Ratio Rank: 92
NBCE Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
NBCE Martin Ratio Rank: 94

PGJ

PGJ Risk / Return Rank: 4
PGJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
PGJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
PGJ Omega Ratio Rank: 4
PGJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
PGJ Martin Ratio Rank: 4

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.

NBCE vs. PGJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Neuberger Berman China Equity ETF (NBCE) 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.

	NBCE	PGJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.36	-0.64	+4.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.21	-0.80	+5.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	0.91	+0.67
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.43	-0.48	+7.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	24.33	-1.04	+25.38

NBCE vs. PGJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NBCE Sharpe Ratio is 3.36, which is higher than the PGJ Sharpe Ratio of -0.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NBCE 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.

Drawdowns

NBCE vs. PGJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NBCE drawdown since its inception was -28.42%, smaller than the maximum PGJ drawdown of -78.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBCE and PGJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	NBCE	PGJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.42%	-78.37%	+49.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.23%	-32.09%	+22.86%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-32.09%	—
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	-3.12%	-69.57%	+66.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.98%	-31.82%	+22.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.81%	14.90%	-12.09%

Volatility

NBCE vs. PGJ - Volatility Comparison

Neuberger Berman China Equity ETF (NBCE) has a higher volatility of 9.69% compared to Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) at 6.43%. This indicates that NBCE'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

	NBCE	PGJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.69%	6.43%	+3.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.74%	17.61%	-1.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.40%	24.43%	-4.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.39%	43.76%	-19.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.39%	36.71%	-12.32%

NBCE vs. PGJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

NBCE has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than PGJ's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

NBCE vs. PGJ - Dividend Comparison

NBCE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.00%, less than PGJ's 3.34% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
NBCE Neuberger Berman China Equity ETF	1.00%	1.32%	1.20%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF	3.34%	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 NBCE and PGJ in my portfolio?

NBCE and PGJ have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NBCE or PGJ?

NBCE has higher volatility (9.69%) compared to PGJ (6.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NBCE dropped -28.42% vs PGJ's -78.37%.

Which ETF is better, NBCE or PGJ?

On 1-year performance, NBCE leads with 68.17% vs -15.49% for PGJ. On fees, PGJ is cheaper at 0.70% per year. On volatility, PGJ has been the lower-risk option at 6.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NBCE or PGJ?

Over the 1-year period, NBCE has performed better with a 68.17% return vs -15.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NBCE or PGJ?

PGJ is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for NBCE.

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

PGJ has the higher dividend yield at 3.34%, compared with 1.00% for NBCE.

What is the main difference between NBCE and PGJ?

They also come from different issuers: Neuberger Berman and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for NBCE and 0.70% for PGJ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NBCE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.36 vs -0.64), 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.