PGJ vs. CQQQ
Compare and contrast key facts about Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ).
PGJ and CQQQ are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. PGJ is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the Halter USX China Index. It was launched on Dec 9, 2004. CQQQ is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the AlphaShares China Technology Index. It was launched on Dec 8, 2009. Both PGJ and CQQQ are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Performance
PGJ vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
PGJ vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | -9.88% | 13.66% | 5.91% | -2.38% | -24.50% | -42.87% | 54.24% | 32.18% | -29.51% | 60.27% |
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | -11.77% | 34.96% | 9.84% | -16.71% | -30.09% | -24.54% | 57.33% | 33.57% | -34.77% | 74.31% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PGJ achieves a -9.88% return, which is significantly higher than CQQQ's -11.77% return. Over the past 10 years, PGJ has underperformed CQQQ with an annualized return of 0.23%, while CQQQ has yielded a comparatively higher 3.73% annualized return.
PGJ
- 1D
- 0.44%
- 1M
- -5.61%
- YTD
- -9.88%
- 6M
- -22.40%
- 1Y
- -10.26%
- 3Y*
- -0.87%
- 5Y*
- -14.84%
- 10Y*
- 0.23%
CQQQ
- 1D
- -0.30%
- 1M
- -10.16%
- YTD
- -11.77%
- 6M
- -21.47%
- 1Y
- 5.59%
- 3Y*
- 0.49%
- 5Y*
- -10.79%
- 10Y*
- 3.73%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
PGJ vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both PGJ and CQQQ have an expense ratio of 0.70%.
Return for Risk
PGJ vs. CQQQ — Risk / Return Rank
PGJ
CQQQ
PGJ vs. CQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ). 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.
| PGJ | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.38 | 0.18 | -0.55 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.36 | 0.48 | -0.84 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.96 | 1.06 | -0.10 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.38 | 0.24 | -0.62 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.91 | 0.64 | -1.55 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| PGJ | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.38 | 0.18 | -0.55 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.34 | -0.29 | -0.05 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.01 | 0.11 | -0.11 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.12 | 0.16 | -0.04 |
Correlation
The correlation between PGJ and CQQQ is 0.86, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
PGJ vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison
PGJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.51%, more than CQQQ's 2.45% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | 3.51% | 3.38% | 4.70% | 2.50% | 0.84% | 0.00% | 0.30% | 0.17% | 0.31% | 2.05% | 1.94% | 0.37% |
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | 2.45% | 2.17% | 0.28% | 0.55% | 0.08% | 0.00% | 0.47% | 0.01% | 0.43% | 1.41% | 1.69% | 1.77% |
Drawdowns
PGJ vs. CQQQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PGJ drawdown since its inception was -78.37%, which is greater than CQQQ's maximum drawdown of -73.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PGJ and CQQQ.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| PGJ | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -78.37% | -73.99% | -4.38% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -25.69% | -24.41% | -1.28% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -72.28% | -67.04% | -5.24% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -78.37% | -73.99% | -4.38% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -65.65% | -56.24% | -9.41% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -31.47% | -28.05% | -3.42% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.73% | 9.10% | +1.63% |
Volatility
PGJ vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) is 7.25%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 9.50%. This indicates that PGJ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CQQQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| PGJ | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.25% | 9.50% | -2.25% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 17.78% | 20.69% | -2.91% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.39% | 31.94% | -4.55% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 43.90% | 37.70% | +6.20% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 36.63% | 33.05% | +3.58% |