PGJ vs. MCHS
Compare and contrast key facts about Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS).
PGJ and MCHS 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. MCHS is an actively managed fund by Matthews. It was launched on Jan 10, 2024.
Performance
PGJ vs. MCHS - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
PGJ vs. MCHS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | -9.88% | 13.66% | 13.35% |
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF | 13.36% | 31.19% | 6.53% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PGJ achieves a -9.88% return, which is significantly lower than MCHS's 13.36% 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%
MCHS
- 1D
- 2.32%
- 1M
- -9.45%
- YTD
- 13.36%
- 6M
- 9.20%
- 1Y
- 35.12%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
PGJ vs. MCHS - Expense Ratio Comparison
PGJ has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is lower than MCHS's 0.89% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
PGJ vs. MCHS — Risk / Return Rank
PGJ
MCHS
PGJ vs. MCHS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS). 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 | MCHS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.38 | 1.37 | -1.75 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.36 | 1.94 | -2.30 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.96 | 1.29 | -0.33 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.38 | 2.23 | -2.61 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.91 | 8.17 | -9.07 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| PGJ | MCHS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.38 | 1.37 | -1.75 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.34 | — | — |
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 | 0.83 | -0.71 |
Correlation
The correlation between PGJ and MCHS is 0.71, 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. MCHS - Dividend Comparison
PGJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.51%, more than MCHS's 3.14% yield.
| 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% |
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF | 3.14% | 3.56% | 5.48% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
PGJ vs. MCHS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PGJ drawdown since its inception was -78.37%, which is greater than MCHS's maximum drawdown of -23.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PGJ and MCHS.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| PGJ | MCHS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -78.37% | -23.75% | -54.62% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -25.69% | -15.89% | -9.80% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -72.28% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -78.37% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -65.65% | -9.45% | -56.20% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -31.47% | -7.98% | -23.49% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.73% | 4.34% | +6.39% |
Volatility
PGJ vs. MCHS - Volatility Comparison
Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) have volatilities of 7.25% and 7.12%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| PGJ | MCHS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.25% | 7.12% | +0.13% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 17.78% | 15.31% | +2.47% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.39% | 25.73% | +1.66% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 43.90% | 27.87% | +16.03% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 36.63% | 27.87% | +8.76% |