PGJ vs. MCHS

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

PGJ (Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF) and MCHS (Matthews China Discovery Active ETF) are both China Equities funds. PGJ is passively managed, while MCHS is actively managed. Over the past year, PGJ returned -21.34% vs 84.27% for MCHS. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PGJ charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for MCHS.

Performance

PGJ vs. MCHS - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PGJ achieves a -23.70% return, which is significantly lower than MCHS's 57.13% 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%

MCHS

• 1D: 3.62%
• 1M: 7.32%
• YTD: 57.13%
• 6M: 55.73%
• 1Y: 84.27%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

PGJ vs. MCHS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF	-23.70%	13.66%	14.53%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	57.13%	31.19%	6.53%

Correlation

The correlation between PGJ and MCHS is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2024	0.66

Over the past year, the correlation between PGJ and MCHS has dropped to 0.45 - well below their long-term average of 0.66, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

PGJ vs. MCHS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PGJ	MCHS
Consumer Cyclical	44.4%	4.5%
Communication Services	26.3%	1.2%
Technology	11.4%	49.7%
Consumer Defensive	7.6%	0.8%
Financial Services	3.9%	-
Real Estate	3.1%	1.6%
Industrials	2.6%	27.8%
Energy	2.1%	6.3%
Healthcare	0.7%	2.1%
Basic Materials	-	8.1%
Utilities	-	2.1%

Return for Risk

PGJ vs. MCHS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

PGJ

PGJ Risk / Return Rank: 3
PGJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
PGJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
PGJ Omega Ratio Rank: 3
PGJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
PGJ Martin Ratio Rank: 2

MCHS

MCHS Risk / Return Rank: 94
MCHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
MCHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
MCHS Omega Ratio Rank: 93
MCHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
MCHS Martin Ratio Rank: 92

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

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.

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	MCHS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.88	3.36	-4.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.20	4.05	-5.25
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.87	1.57	-0.70
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.61	6.97	-7.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.41	20.28	-21.69

PGJ vs. MCHS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PGJ Sharpe Ratio is -0.88, which is lower than the MCHS Sharpe Ratio of 3.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PGJ and MCHS, 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. 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.

Drawdown Indicators

	PGJ	MCHS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-78.37%	-23.75%	-54.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-35.08%	-12.15%	-22.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.08%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-70.00%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-78.37%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-70.91%	-1.03%	-69.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.83%	-7.51%	-24.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	15.21%	4.17%	+11.04%

Volatility

PGJ vs. MCHS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) is 6.66%, while Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) has a volatility of 13.46%. This indicates that PGJ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MCHS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PGJ	MCHS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.66%	13.46%	-6.80%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.82%	21.83%	-4.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.38%	25.22%	-0.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	43.77%	28.99%	+14.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	36.71%	28.99%	+7.72%

PGJ vs. MCHS - Expense Ratio Comparison

PGJ has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is lower than MCHS's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

PGJ vs. MCHS - Dividend Comparison

PGJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.50%, more than MCHS's 2.27% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	2.27%	3.56%	5.48%	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

Can I hold both PGJ and MCHS in my portfolio?

PGJ and MCHS have a correlation of 0.45, 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 MCHS?

MCHS has higher volatility (13.46%) compared to PGJ (6.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PGJ dropped -78.37% vs MCHS's -23.75%.

Which ETF is better, PGJ or MCHS?

On 1-year performance, MCHS leads with 84.27% vs -21.34% for PGJ. On fees, PGJ is cheaper at 0.70% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, PGJ or MCHS?

Over the 1-year period, MCHS has performed better with a 84.27% return vs -21.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PGJ or MCHS?

PGJ is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for MCHS.

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

PGJ has the higher dividend yield at 3.50%, compared with 2.27% for MCHS.

What is the main difference between PGJ and MCHS?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for PGJ and 0.89% for MCHS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.36 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.