PGJ vs. CQQQ

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

PGJ (Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF) and CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) are both China Equities funds from Invesco - PGJ tracks the Halter USX China Index while CQQQ tracks the FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, PGJ returned -0.01%/yr vs 4.42%/yr for CQQQ. Their correlation of 0.85 means they have usually moved in the same direction. Both charge a 0.70% expense ratio.

Performance

PGJ vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PGJ achieves a -10.85% return, which is significantly lower than CQQQ's -0.60% return. Over the past 10 years, PGJ has underperformed CQQQ with an annualized return of -0.01%, while CQQQ has yielded a comparatively higher 4.42% annualized return.

PGJ

• 1D: -0.22%
• 1M: 12.14%
• 6M: -11.91%
• YTD: -10.85%
• 1Y: -9.19%
• 3Y*: -2.52%
• 5Y*: -9.34%
• 10Y*: -0.01%
• ALL TIME*: 4.05%

CQQQ

• 1D: 2.99%
• 1M: -4.26%
• 6M: -4.67%
• YTD: -0.60%
• 1Y: 12.26%
• 3Y*: 7.52%
• 5Y*: -5.62%
• 10Y*: 4.42%
• ALL TIME*: 5.51%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	$53.35M	$63.10M	$77.04M
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF	$621.06K	$575.44K	$704.05K

PGJ vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF	-10.85%	13.66%	5.91%	-2.38%	-24.50%	-42.87%	54.24%	32.18%	-29.51%	60.27%
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	-0.60%	34.96%	9.84%	-16.71%	-30.09%	-24.54%	57.33%	33.57%	-34.77%	74.31%

Correlation

The correlation between PGJ and CQQQ is 0.67, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.67
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.79
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.85
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 8, 2009	0.85

The correlation between PGJ and CQQQ shifts across timeframes, from 0.67 (1 year) to 0.85 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PGJ vs. CQQQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PGJ	CQQQ
Consumer Cyclical	43.7%	16.5%
Technology	17.6%	57.0%
Communication Services	13.0%	24.7%
Consumer Defensive	8.2%	-
Financial Services	6.8%	0.5%
Industrials	6.7%	1.2%
Real Estate	2.3%	-
Healthcare	0.7%	-
Energy	0.6%	-
Basic Materials	0.0%	0.1%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

PGJ vs. CQQQ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

PGJ

PGJ Risk / Return Rank: 6
PGJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
PGJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
PGJ Omega Ratio Rank: 6
PGJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
PGJ Martin Ratio Rank: 7

CQQQ

CQQQ Risk / Return Rank: 18
CQQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
CQQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
CQQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 19
CQQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
CQQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 18

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. 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.

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	CQQQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.37	0.38	-0.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.38	0.76	-1.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.96	1.09	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.26	0.50	-0.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.51	1.08	-1.60

PGJ vs. CQQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PGJ Sharpe Ratio is -0.37, which is lower than the CQQQ Sharpe Ratio of 0.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PGJ and CQQQ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	PGJ	CQQQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-78.37%	-73.99%	-4.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-35.08%	-24.41%	-10.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.08%	-34.42%	-0.66%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-62.75%	-62.09%	-0.66%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-78.37%	-73.99%	-4.38%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-66.01%	-50.69%	-15.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-32.01%	-28.50%	-3.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	17.93%	11.34%	+6.59%

Volatility

PGJ vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) is 6.07%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 11.42%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	PGJ	CQQQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.07%	11.42%	-5.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.69%	24.86%	-7.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.91%	32.60%	-7.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	43.15%	38.19%	+4.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	36.75%	33.57%	+3.18%

PGJ vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both PGJ and CQQQ have an expense ratio of 0.70%.

Dividends

PGJ vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison

PGJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.99%, more than CQQQ's 2.18% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF	2.18%	2.17%	0.28%	0.55%	0.08%	0.00%	0.47%	0.01%	0.43%	1.41%	1.69%	1.77%
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF	2.99%	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

Can I hold both PGJ and CQQQ in my portfolio?

PGJ and CQQQ have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PGJ or CQQQ?

CQQQ has higher volatility (11.42%) compared to PGJ (6.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PGJ dropped -78.37% vs CQQQ's -73.99%.

Which ETF is better, PGJ or CQQQ?

On 10-year performance, CQQQ leads with 4.42% vs -0.01% for PGJ. Both ETFs have the same 0.70% expense ratio. On volatility, PGJ has been the lower-risk option at 6.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PGJ or CQQQ?

Over the 10-year period, CQQQ has performed better with a 4.42% return vs -0.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PGJ or CQQQ?

PGJ and CQQQ have the same expense ratio: 0.70% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PGJ or CQQQ?

PGJ has the higher dividend yield at 2.99%, compared with 2.18% for CQQQ.

What is the main difference between PGJ and CQQQ?

PGJ tracks Halter USX China Index, while CQQQ tracks FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CQQQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.38 vs -0.37), 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.