PGJ vs. EMQP.L

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and EMQQ Emerging Markets Internet & Ecommerce UCITS ETF - Accumulating (EMQP.L).

PGJ and EMQP.L 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. EMQP.L is a passively managed fund by HANetf that tracks the performance of the MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD. It was launched on Nov 5, 2021. Both PGJ and EMQP.L 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. EMQP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and EMQQ Emerging Markets Internet & Ecommerce UCITS ETF - Accumulating (EMQP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

PGJ vs. EMQP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF	-9.88%	13.66%	5.91%	-2.38%	-24.50%	-42.87%	54.24%	32.18%	-9.67%
EMQP.L EMQQ Emerging Markets Internet & Ecommerce UCITS ETF - Accumulating	-18.59%	19.23%	12.95%	3.85%	-31.34%	-33.08%	82.11%	32.93%	-9.74%

Different Trading Currencies

PGJ is traded in USD, while EMQP.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the EMQP.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PGJ achieves a -9.88% return, which is significantly higher than EMQP.L's -18.59% 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%

EMQP.L

• 1D: 2.21%
• 1M: -7.14%
• YTD: -18.59%
• 6M: -27.26%
• 1Y: -12.85%
• 3Y*: 1.97%
• 5Y*: -12.56%
• 10Y*: —

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

PGJ vs. EMQP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

PGJ has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is lower than EMQP.L's 0.86% expense ratio.

EMQP.L

EMQQ Emerging Markets Internet & Ecommerce UCITS ETF - Accumulating

PGJ

Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF

Return for Risk

PGJ vs. EMQP.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

PGJ

PGJ Risk / Return Rank: 5
PGJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
PGJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
PGJ Omega Ratio Rank: 6
PGJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
PGJ Martin Ratio Rank: 5

EMQP.L

EMQP.L Risk / Return Rank: 2
EMQP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
EMQP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
EMQP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2
EMQP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
EMQP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

PGJ vs. EMQP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and EMQQ Emerging Markets Internet & Ecommerce UCITS ETF - Accumulating (EMQP.L). 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	EMQP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-0.38	-0.58	+0.20
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	-0.36	-0.69	+0.34
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.96	0.92	+0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.38	-0.41	+0.03
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-0.91	-1.13	+0.22
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PGJ vs. EMQP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PGJ Sharpe Ratio is -0.38, which is higher than the EMQP.L Sharpe Ratio of -0.58. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PGJ and EMQP.L, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	PGJ	EMQP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.38	-0.58	+0.20
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.34	-0.38	+0.04
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.01	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.12	0.06	+0.06

Correlation

The correlation between PGJ and EMQP.L is 0.72, 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. EMQP.L - Dividend Comparison

PGJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.51%, while EMQP.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

	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%
EMQP.L EMQQ Emerging Markets Internet & Ecommerce UCITS ETF - Accumulating	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Drawdowns

PGJ vs. EMQP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PGJ drawdown since its inception was -78.37%, which is greater than EMQP.L's maximum drawdown of -73.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PGJ and EMQP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	PGJ	EMQP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-78.37%	-67.77%	-10.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.69%	-28.88%	+3.19%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-72.28%	-60.96%	-11.32%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-78.37%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-65.65%	-56.50%	-9.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.47%	-37.88%	+6.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.73%	10.81%	-0.08%

Volatility

PGJ vs. EMQP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) is 7.25%, while EMQQ Emerging Markets Internet & Ecommerce UCITS ETF - Accumulating (EMQP.L) has a volatility of 7.71%. This indicates that PGJ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMQP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PGJ	EMQP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.25%	7.71%	-0.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.78%	14.64%	+3.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.39%	22.15%	+5.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	43.90%	33.26%	+10.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	36.63%	33.87%	+2.76%