SGLN.L vs. CQQQ
SGLN.L (iShares Physical Gold ETC) and CQQQ (Invesco China Technology ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SGLN.L is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price, while CQQQ is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, SGLN.L returned 13.68%/yr vs 5.82%/yr for CQQQ. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SGLN.L charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for CQQQ.
Performance
SGLN.L vs. CQQQ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
SGLN.L is traded in GBp, while CQQQ is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the CQQQ values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SGLN.L achieves a 1.38% return, which is significantly higher than CQQQ's -1.82% return. Over the past 10 years, SGLN.L has outperformed CQQQ with an annualized return of 13.68%, while CQQQ has yielded a comparatively lower 5.82% annualized return.
SGLN.L
- 1D
- -0.06%
- 1M
- -6.00%
- YTD
- 1.38%
- 6M
- 3.07%
- 1Y
- 31.70%
- 3Y*
- 27.57%
- 5Y*
- 19.24%
- 10Y*
- 13.68%
CQQQ
- 1D
- -1.11%
- 1M
- -3.70%
- YTD
- -1.82%
- 6M
- -3.30%
- 1Y
- 22.57%
- 3Y*
- 6.45%
- 5Y*
- -7.22%
- 10Y*
- 5.82%
SGLN.L vs. CQQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SGLN.L iShares Physical Gold ETC | 1.38% | 53.66% | 28.20% | 7.24% | 11.84% | -2.82% | 19.93% | 14.63% | 4.36% | 1.68% |
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | -1.82% | 25.35% | 11.76% | -20.88% | -21.78% | -23.82% | 52.71% | 28.49% | -30.90% | 59.24% |
Correlation
The correlation between SGLN.L and CQQQ is 0.17, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.17 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.04 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.05 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 11, 2011 | 0.06 |
The correlation between SGLN.L and CQQQ shifts across timeframes, from 0.04 (3 years) to 0.17 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
SGLN.L vs. CQQQ — Risk / Return Rank
SGLN.L
CQQQ
SGLN.L vs. CQQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Physical Gold ETC (SGLN.L) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ). 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.
| SGLN.L | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.56 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.49 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.16 | +0.11 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.75 | 0.99 | +0.76 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.61 | 2.21 | +2.39 |
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 charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| SGLN.L | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.35 | 0.79 | +0.56 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.89 | -0.20 | +1.09 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.73 | 0.18 | +0.55 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.25 | 0.22 | +0.02 |
Drawdowns
SGLN.L vs. CQQQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SGLN.L drawdown since its inception was -53.23%, smaller than the maximum CQQQ drawdown of -71.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SGLN.L and CQQQ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SGLN.L | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -53.23% | -71.37% | +18.14% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -18.04% | -22.88% | +4.84% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -20.33% | -34.87% | +14.54% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.33% | -63.79% | +43.46% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -22.30% | -71.37% | +49.07% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -18.04% | -49.76% | +31.72% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -24.71% | -26.11% | +1.40% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.86% | 10.22% | -3.36% |
Volatility
SGLN.L vs. CQQQ - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Physical Gold ETC (SGLN.L) is 4.84%, while Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) has a volatility of 10.88%. This indicates that SGLN.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CQQQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SGLN.L | CQQQ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.84% | 10.88% | -6.04% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 20.20% | 20.74% | -0.54% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.35% | 28.59% | -5.24% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.74% | 36.27% | -14.53% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.80% | 32.43% | -13.63% |
SGLN.L vs. CQQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
SGLN.L has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than CQQQ's 0.70% expense ratio.
Dividends
SGLN.L vs. CQQQ - Dividend Comparison
SGLN.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CQQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.23%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CQQQ Invesco China Technology ETF | 2.23% | 2.17% | 0.28% | 0.55% | 0.08% | 0.00% | 0.47% | 0.01% | 0.43% | 1.41% | 1.69% | 1.77% |
SGLN.L iShares Physical Gold ETC | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
SGLN.L and CQQQ have a correlation of 0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, SGLN.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
SGLN.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for CQQQ.
SGLN.L is categorized as Gold, while CQQQ is China Equities. SGLN.L tracks LBMA Gold Price, while CQQQ tracks FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for SGLN.L and 0.70% for CQQQ.
Find the right allocation for SGLN.L and CQQQ
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