QQJG vs. CSHP

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

QQJG (Invesco ESG NASDAQ Next Gen 100 ETF) and CSHP (iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QQJG is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq Next Generation 100 ESG Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while CSHP is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by iShares. QQJG is passively managed, while CSHP is actively managed. Over the past year, QQJG returned 18.67% vs 3.94% for CSHP. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.20% expense ratio.

Performance

QQJG vs. CSHP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco ESG NASDAQ Next Gen 100 ETF (QQJG) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QQJG achieves a 1.44% return, which is significantly lower than CSHP's 1.62% return.

QQJG

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 1.44%
• 6M: 1.43%
• 1Y: 18.67%
• 3Y*: 14.26%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CSHP

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 0.24%
• YTD: 1.62%
• 6M: 1.86%
• 1Y: 3.94%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

QQJG vs. CSHP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
QQJG Invesco ESG NASDAQ Next Gen 100 ETF	1.44%	18.05%	7.25%
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	1.62%	4.10%	2.24%

Correlation

The correlation between QQJG and CSHP is -0.08, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 19, 2024	0.08

The correlation between QQJG and CSHP shifts across timeframes, from -0.08 (1 year) to 0.08 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

QQJG vs. CSHP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QQJG	CSHP
Technology	44.5%	-
Healthcare	18.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	14.3%	-
Industrials	6.4%	-
Communication Services	6.2%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.4%	-
Basic Materials	2.5%	-
Energy	1.6%	-
Financial Services	0.1%	0.1%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

QQJG vs. CSHP — Risk / Return Rank

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

QQJG

QQJG Risk / Return Rank: 44
QQJG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
QQJG Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
QQJG Omega Ratio Rank: 45
QQJG Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
QQJG Martin Ratio Rank: 52

CSHP

CSHP Risk / Return Rank: 100
CSHP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Omega Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

QQJG vs. CSHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco ESG NASDAQ Next Gen 100 ETF (QQJG) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). 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.

	QQJG	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.35	11.82	-10.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.95	30.91	-28.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	7.26	-5.97
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.38	65.45	-63.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.74	428.15	-419.41
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

QQJG vs. CSHP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QQJG Sharpe Ratio is 1.35, which is lower than the CSHP Sharpe Ratio of 11.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QQJG and CSHP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	QQJG	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.35	11.82	-10.47
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.16	10.70	-10.54

Drawdowns

QQJG vs. CSHP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QQJG drawdown since its inception was -36.76%, which is greater than CSHP's maximum drawdown of -0.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QQJG and CSHP.

Drawdown Indicators

	QQJG	CSHP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.76%	-0.08%	-36.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.93%	-0.06%	-7.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.48%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.09%	-0.02%	-2.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.31%	-0.00%	-15.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.15%	0.01%	+2.14%

Volatility

QQJG vs. CSHP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco ESG NASDAQ Next Gen 100 ETF (QQJG) is 0.00%, while iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) has a volatility of 0.08%. This indicates that QQJG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CSHP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QQJG	CSHP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.00%	0.08%	-0.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.27%	0.24%	+8.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.00%	0.33%	+13.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.70%	0.40%	+21.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.70%	0.40%	+21.30%

QQJG vs. CSHP - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both QQJG and CSHP have an expense ratio of 0.20%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

QQJG vs. CSHP - Dividend Comparison

QQJG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.86%, more than CSHP's 3.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	3.92%	5.39%	1.96%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QQJG Invesco ESG NASDAQ Next Gen 100 ETF	13.86%	0.68%	0.65%	0.54%	0.70%	0.08%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both QQJG and CSHP in my portfolio?

QQJG and CSHP have a correlation of -0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QQJG or CSHP?

CSHP has higher volatility (0.08%) compared to QQJG (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QQJG dropped -36.76% vs CSHP's -0.08%.

Which ETF is better, QQJG or CSHP?

On 1-year performance, QQJG leads with 18.67% vs 3.94% for CSHP. Both ETFs have the same 0.20% expense ratio. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QQJG or CSHP?

Over the 1-year period, QQJG has performed better with a 18.67% return vs 3.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QQJG or CSHP?

QQJG and CSHP have the same expense ratio: 0.20% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QQJG or CSHP?

QQJG has the higher dividend yield at 13.86%, compared with 3.92% for CSHP.

What is the main difference between QQJG and CSHP?

QQJG is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while CSHP is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.82 vs 1.35), 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.