PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
PGJ vs. CNYA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

PGJ vs. CNYA

Last updated Aug 4, 2026
Documentation

PGJ (Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF) and CNYA (iShares MSCI China A ETF) are both China Equities funds - PGJ tracks the Halter USX China Index while CNYA tracks the MSCI China A Inclusion Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, PGJ returned 0.02%/yr vs 5.24%/yr for CNYA. Their 0.57 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. PGJ charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for CNYA.

Performance

PGJ vs. CNYA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA). 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 -10.65% return, which is significantly lower than CNYA's 1.42% return. Over the past 10 years, PGJ has underperformed CNYA with an annualized return of 0.02%, while CNYA has yielded a comparatively higher 5.24% annualized return.

PGJ

1D
0.68%
1M
12.40%
6M
-12.46%
YTD
-10.65%
1Y
-7.71%
3Y*
-2.44%
5Y*
-9.42%
10Y*
0.02%
ALL TIME*
4.06%

CNYA

1D
-0.48%
1M
-4.50%
6M
1.02%
YTD
1.42%
1Y
20.44%
3Y*
7.23%
5Y*
-1.55%
10Y*
5.24%
ALL TIME*
5.58%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

CNYA

iShares MSCI China A ETF
$1.46M$2.43M$4.11M

PGJ

Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF
$588.59K$569.42K$702.75K

PGJ vs. CNYA - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
PGJ
Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF		-10.65%13.66%5.91%-2.38%-24.50%-42.87%54.24%32.18%-29.51%60.27%
CNYA
iShares MSCI China A ETF		1.42%26.48%10.78%-13.76%-26.51%3.53%41.54%35.95%-26.56%30.99%

Correlation

The correlation between PGJ and CNYA is 0.46, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.46

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.58

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.60

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.57

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 15, 2016

0.57

The correlation between PGJ and CNYA shifts across timeframes, from 0.46 (1 year) to 0.60 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PGJ vs. CNYA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
PGJ
CNYA

Consumer Cyclical

43.7%
4.3%

Technology

17.6%
37.3%

Communication Services

13.0%
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

8.2%
5.8%

Financial Services

6.8%
16.8%

Industrials

6.7%
14.2%

Real Estate

2.3%
0.5%

Healthcare

0.7%
3.8%

Energy

0.6%
2.6%

Basic Materials

0.0%
10.7%

Utilities

-

2.9%

Consumer Cyclical

PGJ
43.7%
CNYA
4.3%

Technology

PGJ
17.6%
CNYA
37.3%

Communication Services

PGJ
13.0%
CNYA
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

PGJ
8.2%
CNYA
5.8%

Financial Services

PGJ
6.8%
CNYA
16.8%

Industrials

PGJ
6.7%
CNYA
14.2%

Real Estate

PGJ
2.3%
CNYA
0.5%

Healthcare

PGJ
0.7%
CNYA
3.8%

Energy

PGJ
0.6%
CNYA
2.6%

Basic Materials

PGJ
0.0%
CNYA
10.7%

Utilities

PGJ

-

CNYA
2.9%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF

iShares MSCI China A ETF

Often compared with PGJ:
PGJ vs. KWEBPGJ vs. CQQQPGJ vs. FXIPGJ vs. MCHIPGJ vs. CHIQPGJ vs. CXSEPGJ vs. VOO
Often compared with CNYA:
CNYA vs. MCHICNYA vs. ASHRCNYA vs. ICHN.ASCNYA vs. KBACNYA vs. FLCHCNYA vs. ICGA.DECNYA vs. GXC

Return for Risk

PGJ vs. CNYA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks 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: 88
Calmar Ratio Rank
PGJ Martin Ratio Rank: 88
Martin Ratio Rank
CNYA
CNYA Risk / Return Rank: 4444
Overall Rank
CNYA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4040
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CNYA Sortino Ratio Rank: 4040
Sortino Ratio Rank
CNYA Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
CNYA Calmar Ratio Rank: 5454
Calmar Ratio Rank
CNYA Martin Ratio Rank: 4848
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

PGJ vs. CNYA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA). 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.

PGJCNYADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
-0.31
1.02

-1.33

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
-0.28
1.49

-1.78

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.97

1.19

-0.22

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.22

1.98

-2.20

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.43

5.71

-6.15

PGJ vs. CNYA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PGJ Sharpe Ratio is -0.31, which is lower than the CNYA Sharpe Ratio of 1.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PGJ and CNYA, 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...

Drawdowns

PGJ vs. CNYA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PGJ drawdown since its inception was -78.37%, which is greater than CNYA's maximum drawdown of -49.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PGJ and CNYA.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

PGJCNYADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-78.37%

-49.49%

-28.88%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-35.08%

-10.37%

-24.71%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-35.08%

-33.35%

-1.73%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-62.75%

-44.65%

-18.10%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-78.37%

-49.49%

-28.88%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-65.94%

-19.65%

-46.29%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-32.01%

-20.61%

-11.40%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

17.86%

3.58%

+14.28%

Volatility

PGJ vs. CNYA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) is 6.17%, while iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) has a volatility of 8.01%. This indicates that PGJ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNYA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

PGJCNYADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.17%

8.01%

-1.84%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.70%

15.84%

+1.86%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

24.96%

20.22%

+4.74%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

43.15%

23.88%

+19.27%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

36.76%

23.63%

+13.13%

PGJ vs. CNYA - Expense Ratio Comparison

PGJ has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than CNYA's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

PGJ vs. CNYA - Dividend Comparison

PGJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.98%, more than CNYA's 1.85% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CNYA
iShares MSCI China A ETF		1.85%1.92%2.51%4.23%2.69%1.11%1.06%1.21%3.92%0.97%1.38%0.00%
PGJ
Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF		2.98%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 CNYA have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CNYA has higher volatility (8.01%) compared to PGJ (6.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PGJ dropped -78.37% vs CNYA's -49.49%.

On 10-year performance, CNYA leads with 5.24% vs 0.02% for PGJ. On fees, CNYA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, PGJ has been the lower-risk option at 6.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, CNYA has performed better with a 5.24% return vs 0.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

CNYA is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for PGJ.

PGJ has the higher dividend yield at 2.98%, compared with 1.85% for CNYA.

PGJ tracks Halter USX China Index, while CNYA tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for PGJ and 0.60% for CNYA.

CNYA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.02 vs -0.31), 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 CNYA

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