PGJ vs. ISCMF
PGJ (Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF) and ISCMF (iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PGJ is a China Equities fund tracking the Halter USX China Index, while ISCMF is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, PGJ returned -0.89%/yr vs 16.78%/yr for ISCMF. At a correlation of -0.02, they often move in opposite directions. PGJ charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for ISCMF.
Performance
PGJ vs. ISCMF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PGJ achieves a -20.19% return, which is significantly lower than ISCMF's 22.87% return.
PGJ
- 1D
- -0.56%
- 1M
- -8.64%
- YTD
- -20.19%
- 6M
- -21.38%
- 1Y
- -15.49%
- 3Y*
- -0.89%
- 5Y*
- -15.22%
- 10Y*
- -0.09%
ISCMF
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- -4.99%
- YTD
- 22.87%
- 6M
- 22.87%
- 1Y
- 31.30%
- 3Y*
- 16.78%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PGJ vs. ISCMF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | -20.19% | 13.66% | 5.91% | -2.38% | -7.18% |
ISCMF iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF | 22.87% | 19.65% | 3.13% | -9.58% | -5.82% |
Correlation
The correlation between PGJ and ISCMF is -0.12, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.12 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.01 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 17, 2022 | -0.02 |
The correlation between PGJ and ISCMF shifts across timeframes, from -0.12 (1 year) to -0.01 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
PGJ vs. ISCMF — Risk / Return Rank
PGJ
ISCMF
PGJ vs. ISCMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ISCMF). 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 | ISCMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.40 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.99 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.91 | 2.31 | -1.40 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.48 | 5.53 | -6.01 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.04 | 11.85 | -12.89 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PGJ vs. ISCMF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PGJ drawdown since its inception was -78.37%, which is greater than ISCMF's maximum drawdown of -25.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PGJ and ISCMF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PGJ | ISCMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -78.37% | -25.42% | -52.95% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -32.09% | -5.69% | -26.40% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -32.09% | -7.62% | -24.47% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -70.00% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -78.37% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -69.57% | -5.26% | -64.31% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -31.82% | -13.35% | -18.47% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 14.90% | 2.65% | +12.25% |
Volatility
PGJ vs. ISCMF - Volatility Comparison
Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) has a higher volatility of 6.43% compared to iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ISCMF) at 5.11%. This indicates that PGJ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ISCMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PGJ | ISCMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.43% | 5.11% | +1.32% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 17.61% | 15.45% | +2.16% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.43% | 17.84% | +6.59% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 43.76% | 14.29% | +29.47% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 36.71% | 14.29% | +22.42% |
PGJ vs. ISCMF - Expense Ratio Comparison
PGJ has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than ISCMF's 0.19% expense ratio.
Dividends
PGJ vs. ISCMF - Dividend Comparison
PGJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.34%, while ISCMF has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ISCMF iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | 3.34% | 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 ISCMF have a correlation of -0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
PGJ has higher volatility (6.43%) compared to ISCMF (5.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PGJ dropped -78.37% vs ISCMF's -25.42%.
On 3-year performance, ISCMF leads with 16.78% vs -0.89% for PGJ. On fees, ISCMF is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, ISCMF has been the lower-risk option at 5.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, ISCMF has performed better with a 16.78% return vs -0.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ISCMF is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for PGJ.
PGJ has the higher dividend yield at 3.34%, compared with 0.00% for ISCMF.
PGJ is categorized as China Equities, while ISCMF is Commodities. PGJ tracks Halter USX China Index, while ISCMF tracks Bloomberg Commodity Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for PGJ and 0.19% for ISCMF.
ISCMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.76 vs -0.64), 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.
Find the right allocation for PGJ and ISCMF
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