PGJ vs. ISVBF
PGJ (Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF) and ISVBF (iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds - PGJ tracks the Halter USX China Index while ISVBF tracks the MSCI China A Inclusion Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, PGJ returned -16.10%/yr vs -6.63%/yr for ISVBF. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PGJ charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for ISVBF.
Performance
PGJ vs. ISVBF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PGJ achieves a -23.70% return, which is significantly lower than ISVBF's -14.80% return.
PGJ
- 1D
- -2.80%
- 1M
- -12.94%
- YTD
- -23.70%
- 6M
- -24.84%
- 1Y
- -21.34%
- 3Y*
- -2.41%
- 5Y*
- -16.10%
- 10Y*
- -0.29%
ISVBF
- 1D
- -0.85%
- 1M
- -9.22%
- YTD
- -14.80%
- 6M
- -14.96%
- 1Y
- -6.39%
- 3Y*
- 7.90%
- 5Y*
- -6.63%
- 10Y*
- —
PGJ vs. ISVBF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | -23.70% | 13.66% | 5.91% | -2.38% | -24.50% | -40.68% |
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF | -14.80% | 30.64% | 18.96% | -9.28% | -23.01% | -22.12% |
Correlation
The correlation between PGJ and ISVBF is 0.58, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.58 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.46 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.30 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2021 | 0.30 |
Over the past year, PGJ and ISVBF have become more correlated (0.58) than their long-term average of 0.30, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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. ISVBF — Risk / Return Rank
PGJ
ISVBF
PGJ vs. ISVBF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF). 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 | ISVBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.67 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.11 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.87 | 0.99 | -0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.61 | -0.28 | -0.33 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.41 | -0.68 | -0.72 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PGJ vs. ISVBF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PGJ drawdown since its inception was -78.37%, which is greater than ISVBF's maximum drawdown of -53.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PGJ and ISVBF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PGJ | ISVBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -78.37% | -53.78% | -24.59% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -35.08% | -22.63% | -12.45% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -35.08% | -23.77% | -11.31% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -70.00% | -52.51% | -17.49% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -78.37% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -70.91% | -30.95% | -39.96% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -31.83% | -32.68% | +0.85% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 15.21% | 9.39% | +5.82% |
Volatility
PGJ vs. ISVBF - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) is 6.66%, while iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) has a volatility of 7.55%. This indicates that PGJ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ISVBF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PGJ | ISVBF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.66% | 7.55% | -0.89% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 17.82% | 26.94% | -9.12% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.38% | 30.86% | -6.48% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 43.77% | 30.32% | +13.45% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 36.71% | 30.14% | +6.57% |
PGJ vs. ISVBF - Expense Ratio Comparison
PGJ has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than ISVBF's 0.40% expense ratio.
Dividends
PGJ vs. ISVBF - Dividend Comparison
PGJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.50%, while ISVBF has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A 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 | 3.50% | 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 ISVBF have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ISVBF has higher volatility (7.55%) compared to PGJ (6.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PGJ dropped -78.37% vs ISVBF's -53.78%.
On 5-year performance, ISVBF leads with -6.63% vs -16.10% for PGJ. On fees, ISVBF is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, PGJ has been the lower-risk option at 6.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, ISVBF has performed better with a -6.63% return vs -16.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ISVBF is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for PGJ.
PGJ has the higher dividend yield at 3.50%, compared with 0.00% for ISVBF.
PGJ tracks Halter USX China Index, while ISVBF tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for PGJ and 0.40% for ISVBF.
ISVBF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.21 vs -0.88), 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 ISVBF
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