PGJ vs. KWEB
PGJ (Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF) and KWEB (KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF) are both China Equities funds - PGJ tracks the Halter USX China Index while KWEB tracks the CSI Overseas China Internet Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, PGJ returned -0.38%/yr vs -0.41%/yr for KWEB. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.70% expense ratio.
Performance
PGJ vs. KWEB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PGJ achieves a -17.71% return, which is significantly higher than KWEB's -22.97% return. Over the past 10 years, PGJ has outperformed KWEB with an annualized return of -0.38%, while KWEB has yielded a comparatively lower -0.41% annualized return.
PGJ
- 1D
- -0.03%
- 1M
- -3.09%
- 6M
- -22.87%
- YTD
- -17.71%
- 1Y
- -15.96%
- 3Y*
- -3.07%
- 5Y*
- -13.37%
- 10Y*
- -0.38%
KWEB
- 1D
- -0.57%
- 1M
- -0.98%
- 6M
- -30.35%
- YTD
- -22.97%
- 1Y
- -17.81%
- 3Y*
- 0.03%
- 5Y*
- -13.12%
- 10Y*
- -0.41%
PGJ vs. KWEB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | -17.71% | 13.66% | 5.91% | -2.38% | -24.50% | -42.87% | 54.24% | 32.18% | -29.51% | 60.27% |
KWEB KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF | -22.97% | 23.55% | 12.01% | -9.06% | -17.24% | -49.01% | 58.23% | 29.92% | -33.80% | 69.73% |
Correlation
The correlation between PGJ and KWEB is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.93 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.94 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.95 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2013 | 0.95 |
The correlation between PGJ and KWEB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.
PGJ vs. KWEB - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
PGJ
KWEB
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
Technology
Consumer Defensive
Financial Services
Real Estate
Industrials
Energy
-
Healthcare
Basic Materials
-
-
Utilities
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
PGJ
KWEB
Communication Services
PGJ
KWEB
Technology
PGJ
KWEB
Consumer Defensive
PGJ
KWEB
Financial Services
PGJ
KWEB
Real Estate
PGJ
KWEB
Industrials
PGJ
KWEB
Energy
PGJ
KWEB
-
Healthcare
PGJ
KWEB
Basic Materials
PGJ
-
KWEB
-
Utilities
PGJ
-
KWEB
-
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. KWEB — Risk / Return Rank
PGJ
KWEB
PGJ vs. KWEB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF (KWEB). 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 | KWEB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.00 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 0.00 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.91 | 0.91 | 0.00 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.46 | -0.43 | -0.03 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.96 | -0.87 | -0.10 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PGJ vs. KWEB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PGJ drawdown since its inception was -78.37%, roughly equal to the maximum KWEB drawdown of -80.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PGJ and KWEB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PGJ | KWEB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -78.37% | -80.92% | +2.55% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -35.08% | -41.62% | +6.54% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -35.08% | -41.62% | +6.54% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -66.68% | -68.90% | +2.22% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -78.37% | -80.92% | +2.55% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -68.63% | -69.66% | +1.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -31.91% | -35.51% | +3.60% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 16.58% | 20.57% | -3.99% |
Volatility
PGJ vs. KWEB - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) is 7.00%, while KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF (KWEB) has a volatility of 7.71%. This indicates that PGJ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than KWEB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PGJ | KWEB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.00% | 7.71% | -0.71% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 17.84% | 20.51% | -2.67% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.84% | 27.59% | -2.75% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 43.69% | 47.58% | -3.89% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 36.72% | 40.01% | -3.29% |
PGJ vs. KWEB - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both PGJ and KWEB have an expense ratio of 0.70%.
Dividends
PGJ vs. KWEB - Dividend Comparison
PGJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.24%, less than KWEB's 7.99% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
KWEB KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF | 7.99% | 6.16% | 3.51% | 1.71% | 0.00% | 7.07% | 0.29% | 0.08% | 3.40% | 0.58% | 1.19% | 0.46% |
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | 3.24% | 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
With a correlation of 0.93, PGJ and KWEB move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
KWEB has higher volatility (7.71%) compared to PGJ (7.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PGJ dropped -78.37% vs KWEB's -80.92%.
On 10-year performance, PGJ leads with -0.38% vs -0.41% for KWEB. Both ETFs have the same 0.70% expense ratio. On volatility, PGJ has been the lower-risk option at 7.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, PGJ has performed better with a -0.38% return vs -0.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PGJ and KWEB have the same expense ratio: 0.70% per year.
KWEB has the higher dividend yield at 7.99%, compared with 3.24% for PGJ.
PGJ tracks Halter USX China Index, while KWEB tracks CSI Overseas China Internet Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and KraneShares.
PGJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.65 vs -0.65), 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 KWEB
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