PGJ vs. CNXT
PGJ (Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF) and CNXT (VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC SME-ChiNext ETF) are both China Equities funds - PGJ tracks the Halter USX China Index while CNXT tracks the SME-ChiNext 100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, PGJ returned -0.16%/yr vs 4.70%/yr for CNXT. A 0.50 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PGJ charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for CNXT.
Performance
PGJ vs. CNXT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PGJ achieves a -15.55% return, which is significantly lower than CNXT's 11.77% return. Over the past 10 years, PGJ has underperformed CNXT with an annualized return of -0.16%, while CNXT has yielded a comparatively higher 4.70% annualized return.
PGJ
- 1D
- -1.70%
- 1M
- 2.84%
- 6M
- -17.69%
- YTD
- -15.55%
- 1Y
- -16.64%
- 3Y*
- -1.10%
- 5Y*
- -12.61%
- 10Y*
- -0.16%
CNXT
- 1D
- -6.03%
- 1M
- -15.74%
- 6M
- 5.54%
- YTD
- 11.77%
- 1Y
- 62.39%
- 3Y*
- 20.22%
- 5Y*
- 0.24%
- 10Y*
- 4.70%
PGJ vs. CNXT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | -15.55% | 13.66% | 5.91% | -2.38% | -24.50% | -42.87% | 54.24% | 32.18% | -29.51% | 60.27% |
CNXT VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC SME-ChiNext ETF | 11.77% | 59.31% | 12.42% | -21.47% | -35.58% | 8.78% | 63.30% | 42.66% | -39.48% | 20.19% |
Correlation
The correlation between PGJ and CNXT is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.43 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.55 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.53 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.52 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 24, 2014 | 0.50 |
The correlation between PGJ and CNXT shifts across timeframes, from 0.43 (1 year) to 0.55 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
PGJ vs. CNXT - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
PGJ
CNXT
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
Technology
Consumer Defensive
Financial Services
Real Estate
-
Industrials
Energy
-
Healthcare
Basic Materials
-
Utilities
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
PGJ
CNXT
Communication Services
PGJ
CNXT
Technology
PGJ
CNXT
Consumer Defensive
PGJ
CNXT
Financial Services
PGJ
CNXT
Real Estate
PGJ
CNXT
-
Industrials
PGJ
CNXT
Energy
PGJ
CNXT
-
Healthcare
PGJ
CNXT
Basic Materials
PGJ
-
CNXT
Utilities
PGJ
-
CNXT
-
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. CNXT — Risk / Return Rank
PGJ
CNXT
PGJ vs. CNXT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC SME-ChiNext ETF (CNXT). 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.
| PGJ | CNXT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.45 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.24 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.91 | 1.30 | -0.39 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.48 | 2.90 | -3.38 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.98 | 12.56 | -13.54 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PGJ vs. CNXT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PGJ drawdown since its inception was -78.37%, which is greater than CNXT's maximum drawdown of -68.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PGJ and CNXT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PGJ | CNXT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -78.37% | -68.98% | -9.39% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -35.08% | -21.62% | -13.46% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -35.08% | -48.60% | +13.52% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -66.49% | -61.21% | -5.28% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -78.37% | -63.30% | -15.07% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -67.81% | -21.62% | -46.19% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -31.94% | -42.57% | +10.63% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 16.96% | 4.98% | +11.98% |
Volatility
PGJ vs. CNXT - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) is 7.38%, while VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC SME-ChiNext ETF (CNXT) has a volatility of 16.37%. This indicates that PGJ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNXT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PGJ | CNXT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.38% | 16.37% | -8.99% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 17.54% | 26.34% | -8.80% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.84% | 35.30% | -10.46% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 43.68% | 36.00% | +7.68% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 36.73% | 32.08% | +4.65% |
PGJ vs. CNXT - Expense Ratio Comparison
PGJ has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than CNXT's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
PGJ vs. CNXT - Dividend Comparison
PGJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.16%, more than CNXT's 0.16% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNXT VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC SME-ChiNext ETF | 0.16% | 0.18% | 0.15% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 9.22% | 0.01% | 0.45% | 0.00% | 0.19% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | 3.16% | 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 CNXT have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CNXT has higher volatility (16.37%) compared to PGJ (7.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PGJ dropped -78.37% vs CNXT's -68.98%.
On 10-year performance, CNXT leads with 4.70% vs -0.16% for PGJ. On fees, CNXT is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, PGJ has been the lower-risk option at 7.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, CNXT has performed better with a 4.70% return vs -0.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CNXT is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for PGJ.
PGJ has the higher dividend yield at 3.16%, compared with 0.16% for CNXT.
PGJ tracks Halter USX China Index, while CNXT tracks SME-ChiNext 100 Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for PGJ and 0.65% for CNXT.
CNXT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.78 vs -0.67), 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.
Find the right allocation for PGJ and CNXT
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