PGJ vs. SPHQ
PGJ (Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF) and SPHQ (Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PGJ is a China Equities fund tracking the Halter USX China Index, while SPHQ is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Quality Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, PGJ returned -0.29%/yr vs 15.88%/yr for SPHQ. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PGJ charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for SPHQ.
Performance
PGJ vs. SPHQ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PGJ achieves a -23.70% return, which is significantly lower than SPHQ's 18.67% return. Over the past 10 years, PGJ has underperformed SPHQ with an annualized return of -0.29%, while SPHQ has yielded a comparatively higher 15.88% annualized 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%
SPHQ
- 1D
- 1.74%
- 1M
- 3.62%
- YTD
- 18.67%
- 6M
- 16.66%
- 1Y
- 28.06%
- 3Y*
- 23.22%
- 5Y*
- 14.39%
- 10Y*
- 15.88%
PGJ vs. SPHQ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PGJ Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF | -23.70% | 13.66% | 5.91% | -2.38% | -24.50% | -42.87% | 54.24% | 32.18% | -29.51% | 60.27% |
SPHQ Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF | 18.67% | 13.25% | 25.44% | 24.83% | -15.76% | 28.03% | 17.36% | 33.64% | -7.10% | 19.10% |
Correlation
The correlation between PGJ and SPHQ is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.35 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.36 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.40 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.46 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 6, 2005 | 0.56 |
Over the past year, the correlation between PGJ and SPHQ has dropped to 0.35 - well below their long-term average of 0.56, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
PGJ vs. SPHQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
PGJ
SPHQ
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
Technology
Consumer Defensive
Financial Services
Real Estate
-
Industrials
Energy
Healthcare
Basic Materials
-
Utilities
-
Consumer Cyclical
PGJ
SPHQ
Communication Services
PGJ
SPHQ
Technology
PGJ
SPHQ
Consumer Defensive
PGJ
SPHQ
Financial Services
PGJ
SPHQ
Real Estate
PGJ
SPHQ
-
Industrials
PGJ
SPHQ
Energy
PGJ
SPHQ
Healthcare
PGJ
SPHQ
Basic Materials
PGJ
-
SPHQ
Utilities
PGJ
-
SPHQ
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. SPHQ — Risk / Return Rank
PGJ
SPHQ
PGJ vs. SPHQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF (SPHQ). 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 | SPHQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.97 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -4.15 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.87 | 1.37 | -0.50 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.61 | 3.17 | -3.78 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.41 | 13.51 | -14.91 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PGJ vs. SPHQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PGJ drawdown since its inception was -78.37%, which is greater than SPHQ's maximum drawdown of -57.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PGJ and SPHQ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PGJ | SPHQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -78.37% | -57.83% | -20.54% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -35.08% | -8.90% | -26.18% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -35.08% | -16.57% | -18.51% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -70.00% | -25.04% | -44.96% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -78.37% | -31.60% | -46.77% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -70.91% | -1.15% | -69.76% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -31.83% | -10.67% | -21.16% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 15.21% | 2.08% | +13.13% |
Volatility
PGJ vs. SPHQ - Volatility Comparison
Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) has a higher volatility of 6.66% compared to Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF (SPHQ) at 5.93%. This indicates that PGJ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SPHQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PGJ | SPHQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.66% | 5.93% | +0.73% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 17.82% | 11.40% | +6.42% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.38% | 13.48% | +10.90% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 43.77% | 16.60% | +27.17% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 36.71% | 17.91% | +18.80% |
PGJ vs. SPHQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
PGJ has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than SPHQ's 0.15% expense ratio.
Dividends
PGJ vs. SPHQ - Dividend Comparison
PGJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.50%, more than SPHQ's 1.05% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
SPHQ Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF | 1.05% | 1.09% | 1.15% | 1.42% | 1.85% | 1.19% | 1.55% | 1.51% | 1.85% | 1.57% | 1.67% | 2.29% |
Frequently Asked Questions
PGJ and SPHQ have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
PGJ has higher volatility (6.66%) compared to SPHQ (5.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PGJ dropped -78.37% vs SPHQ's -57.83%.
On 10-year performance, SPHQ leads with 15.88% vs -0.29% for PGJ. On fees, SPHQ is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, SPHQ has been the lower-risk option at 5.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, SPHQ has performed better with a 15.88% return vs -0.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
SPHQ is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for PGJ.
PGJ has the higher dividend yield at 3.50%, compared with 1.05% for SPHQ.
PGJ is categorized as China Equities, while SPHQ is S&P 500. PGJ tracks Halter USX China Index, while SPHQ tracks S&P 500 Quality Index. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for PGJ and 0.15% for SPHQ.
SPHQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.10 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 SPHQ
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