PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
PGJ vs. ASHS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

PGJ vs. ASHS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and Xtrackers Harvest CSI 500 China A-Shares Small Cap ETF (ASHS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PGJ achieves a -10.99% return, which is significantly lower than ASHS's 15.10% return. Over the past 10 years, PGJ has underperformed ASHS with an annualized return of 0.39%, while ASHS has yielded a comparatively higher 3.27% annualized return.


PGJ

1D
-2.45%
1M
-3.45%
YTD
-10.99%
6M
-12.93%
1Y
-4.61%
3Y*
3.00%
5Y*
-13.64%
10Y*
0.39%

ASHS

1D
-0.17%
1M
-0.19%
YTD
15.10%
6M
23.90%
1Y
57.65%
3Y*
13.41%
5Y*
3.97%
10Y*
3.27%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

PGJ vs. ASHS - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
PGJ
Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF
-10.99%13.66%5.91%-2.38%-24.50%-42.87%54.24%32.18%-29.51%60.27%
ASHS
Xtrackers Harvest CSI 500 China A-Shares Small Cap ETF
15.10%39.48%2.68%-10.03%-24.78%17.66%28.22%24.53%-35.91%7.90%

Correlation

The correlation between PGJ and ASHS is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.48

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.58

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.54

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.51

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 22, 2014

0.50

The correlation between PGJ and ASHS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.48 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

PGJ vs. ASHS - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
PGJ
ASHS

Consumer Cyclical

44.8%
5.8%

Technology

16.2%
29.8%

Communication Services

14.5%
3.2%

Consumer Defensive

7.6%
2.6%

Industrials

6.5%
19.7%

Financial Services

3.6%
6.3%

Real Estate

3.1%
0.7%

Energy

2.3%
3.2%

Healthcare

0.8%
7.2%

Basic Materials

-

19.4%

Utilities

-

2.2%

Consumer Cyclical

PGJ
44.8%
ASHS
5.8%

Technology

PGJ
16.2%
ASHS
29.8%

Communication Services

PGJ
14.5%
ASHS
3.2%

Consumer Defensive

PGJ
7.6%
ASHS
2.6%

Industrials

PGJ
6.5%
ASHS
19.7%

Financial Services

PGJ
3.6%
ASHS
6.3%

Real Estate

PGJ
3.1%
ASHS
0.7%

Energy

PGJ
2.3%
ASHS
3.2%

Healthcare

PGJ
0.8%
ASHS
7.2%

Basic Materials

PGJ

-

ASHS
19.4%

Utilities

PGJ

-

ASHS
2.2%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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


Return for Risk

PGJ vs. ASHS — Risk / Return Rank

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

PGJ
PGJ Risk / Return Rank: 77
Overall Rank
PGJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PGJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
Sortino Ratio Rank
PGJ Omega Ratio Rank: 77
Omega Ratio Rank
PGJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
Calmar Ratio Rank
PGJ Martin Ratio Rank: 77
Martin Ratio Rank

ASHS
ASHS Risk / Return Rank: 7474
Overall Rank
ASHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7878
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ASHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
ASHS Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
ASHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
ASHS Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
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.

PGJ vs. ASHS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and Xtrackers Harvest CSI 500 China A-Shares Small Cap ETF (ASHS). 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.


PGJASHSDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.76

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-3.37

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.99

1.42

-0.43

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.18

4.13

-4.31

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.34

13.72

-14.07

PGJ vs. ASHS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PGJ Sharpe Ratio is -0.19, which is lower than the ASHS Sharpe Ratio of 2.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PGJ and ASHS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


PGJASHSDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.19

2.57

-2.76

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.31

0.15

-0.46

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.01

0.13

-0.12

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.12

0.19

-0.07

Drawdowns

PGJ vs. ASHS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PGJ drawdown since its inception was -78.37%, which is greater than ASHS's maximum drawdown of -69.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PGJ and ASHS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


PGJASHSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-78.37%

-69.90%

-8.47%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-25.69%

-14.03%

-11.66%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-30.82%

-34.13%

+3.31%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-70.00%

-47.81%

-22.19%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-78.37%

-47.81%

-30.56%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-66.07%

-33.57%

-32.50%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-31.74%

-48.57%

+16.83%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

13.40%

4.21%

+9.19%

Volatility

PGJ vs. ASHS - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) has a higher volatility of 8.55% compared to Xtrackers Harvest CSI 500 China A-Shares Small Cap ETF (ASHS) at 7.33%. This indicates that PGJ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ASHS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


PGJASHSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.55%

7.33%

+1.22%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.28%

17.00%

+0.28%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

24.46%

22.59%

+1.87%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

43.73%

26.46%

+17.27%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

36.70%

25.57%

+11.13%

PGJ vs. ASHS - Expense Ratio Comparison

PGJ has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than ASHS's 0.65% expense ratio.


Dividends

PGJ vs. ASHS - Dividend Comparison

PGJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.56%, while ASHS has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ASHS
Xtrackers Harvest CSI 500 China A-Shares Small Cap ETF
0.00%0.00%0.69%0.65%1.90%0.76%0.43%0.57%0.00%0.00%0.00%8.34%
PGJ
Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF
3.56%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


PGJ and ASHS have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

PGJ has higher volatility (8.55%) compared to ASHS (7.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PGJ dropped -78.37% vs ASHS's -69.90%.

On 10-year performance, ASHS leads with 3.27% vs 0.39% for PGJ. On fees, ASHS is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, ASHS has been the lower-risk option at 7.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, ASHS has performed better with a 3.27% return vs 0.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ASHS is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for PGJ.

PGJ has the higher dividend yield at 3.56%, compared with 0.00% for ASHS.

PGJ tracks Halter USX China Index, while ASHS tracks CSI 500 Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Deutsche Bank. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for PGJ and 0.65% for ASHS.

ASHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.57 vs -0.19), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for PGJ and ASHS

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer