PGJ vs. KCAI

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

PGJ (Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF) and KCAI (KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF) are both China Equities funds - PGJ tracks the Halter USX China Index while KCAI tracks the Qi China Alpha Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, PGJ returned -7.71% vs 39.39% for KCAI. Their 0.49 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. PGJ charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for KCAI.

Performance

PGJ vs. KCAI - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PGJ achieves a -10.65% return, which is significantly lower than KCAI's 7.14% return.

PGJ

• 1D: 0.68%
• 1M: 12.40%
• 6M: -12.46%
• YTD: -10.65%
• 1Y: -7.71%
• 3Y*: -2.44%
• 5Y*: -9.42%
• 10Y*: 0.02%
• ALL TIME*: 4.06%

KCAI

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 4.36%
• 6M: 7.96%
• YTD: 7.14%
• 1Y: 39.39%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 36.72%

*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)
KCAI KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF	$43.18K	$26.02K	$162.46K
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF	$588.59K	$569.42K	$702.75K

PGJ vs. KCAI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF	-10.65%	13.66%	21.33%
KCAI KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF	7.14%	53.29%	11.36%

Correlation

The correlation between PGJ and KCAI is 0.39, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.39
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 28, 2024	0.49

The correlation between PGJ and KCAI shifts across timeframes, from 0.39 (1 year) to 0.49 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PGJ vs. KCAI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PGJ	KCAI
Consumer Cyclical	43.7%	9.4%
Technology	17.6%	17.8%
Communication Services	13.0%	-
Consumer Defensive	8.2%	-
Financial Services	6.8%	41.3%
Industrials	6.7%	20.5%
Real Estate	2.3%	-
Healthcare	0.7%	1.3%
Energy	0.6%	-
Basic Materials	0.0%	11.0%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

PGJ vs. KCAI — Risk / Return Rank

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

PGJ

PGJ Risk / Return Rank: 7
PGJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
PGJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
PGJ Omega Ratio Rank: 7
PGJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
PGJ Martin Ratio Rank: 8

KCAI

KCAI Risk / Return Rank: 94
KCAI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
KCAI Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
KCAI Omega Ratio Rank: 93
KCAI Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
KCAI Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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. KCAI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF (KCAI). 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	KCAI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.31	2.79	-3.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.28	4.03	-4.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.97	1.49	-0.52
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.22	6.71	-6.93
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.43	19.98	-20.42

PGJ vs. KCAI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PGJ Sharpe Ratio is -0.31, which is lower than the KCAI Sharpe Ratio of 2.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PGJ and KCAI, 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. KCAI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PGJ drawdown since its inception was -78.37%, which is greater than KCAI's maximum drawdown of -25.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PGJ and KCAI.

Drawdown Indicators

	PGJ	KCAI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-78.37%	-25.48%	-52.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-35.08%	-5.90%	-29.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.08%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-62.75%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-78.37%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-65.94%	-1.79%	-64.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-32.01%	-6.82%	-25.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	17.86%	1.98%	+15.88%

Volatility

PGJ vs. KCAI - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) has a higher volatility of 6.17% compared to KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF (KCAI) at 4.81%. This indicates that PGJ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than KCAI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PGJ	KCAI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.17%	4.81%	+1.36%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.70%	9.80%	+7.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.96%	14.20%	+10.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	43.15%	20.78%	+22.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	36.76%	20.78%	+15.98%

PGJ vs. KCAI - Expense Ratio Comparison

PGJ has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is lower than KCAI's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

PGJ vs. KCAI - Dividend Comparison

PGJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.98%, less than KCAI's 33.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
KCAI KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF	33.06%	35.42%	2.19%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF	2.98%	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 KCAI in my portfolio?

PGJ and KCAI have a correlation of 0.39, 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 KCAI?

PGJ has higher volatility (6.17%) compared to KCAI (4.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PGJ dropped -78.37% vs KCAI's -25.48%.

Which ETF is better, PGJ or KCAI?

On 1-year performance, KCAI leads with 39.39% vs -7.71% for PGJ. On fees, PGJ is cheaper at 0.70% per year. On volatility, KCAI has been the lower-risk option at 4.81%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PGJ or KCAI?

Over the 1-year period, KCAI has performed better with a 39.39% return vs -7.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PGJ or KCAI?

PGJ is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for KCAI.

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

KCAI has the higher dividend yield at 33.06%, compared with 2.98% for PGJ.

What is the main difference between PGJ and KCAI?

PGJ tracks Halter USX China Index, while KCAI tracks Qi China Alpha Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and KraneShares. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for PGJ and 0.79% for KCAI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KCAI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.79 vs -0.31), 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.