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.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: PGJ or CQQQ.
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.
Performance
PGJ vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison
Key characteristics
PGJ:
0.25
CQQQ:
0.37
PGJ:
0.65
CQQQ:
0.86
PGJ:
1.08
CQQQ:
1.10
PGJ:
0.12
CQQQ:
0.20
PGJ:
0.68
CQQQ:
1.17
PGJ:
12.92%
CQQQ:
12.61%
PGJ:
35.27%
CQQQ:
39.89%
PGJ:
-78.37%
CQQQ:
-73.99%
PGJ:
-67.81%
CQQQ:
-64.49%
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PGJ achieves a -4.03% return, which is significantly lower than CQQQ's -3.38% return. Over the past 10 years, PGJ has underperformed CQQQ with an annualized return of 0.24%, while CQQQ has yielded a comparatively higher 1.69% annualized return.
PGJ
-4.03%
-6.89%
9.44%
10.60%
-9.65%
0.24%
CQQQ
-3.38%
-6.92%
9.45%
15.90%
-7.94%
1.69%
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%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
PGJ vs. CQQQ — Risk-Adjusted Performance Rank
PGJ
CQQQ
PGJ vs. CQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Performance 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.
Dividends
PGJ vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison
PGJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.90%, more than CQQQ's 0.29% yield.
| TTM | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | 4.90% | 4.70% | 2.50% | 0.84% | 0.00% | 0.31% | 0.17% | 0.31% | 2.05% | 1.94% | 0.37% | 0.89% |
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | 0.29% | 0.28% | 0.55% | 0.08% | 0.00% | 0.47% | 0.01% | 0.43% | 1.42% | 1.69% | 1.77% | 1.00% |
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. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
PGJ vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) is 6.75%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 7.17%. 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.