PGJvsCQQQETF Comparison
VS
Invesco Golden Dragon China ETF (PGJ) and Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) belong to the same industry segment: China Blended Cap. Both ETFs have the same top 3 sector exposures: Technology, Consumer Non-Cyclicals and Consumer Services. PGJ is more expensive with a Total Expense Ratio (TER) of 0.7%, versus 0.65% for CQQQ. PGJ is down -25.6% year-to-date (YTD) with -$23M in YTD flows. CQQQ performs better with -22.91% YTD performance, and -$212M in YTD flows. Run a side-by-side ETF comparison of PGJ and CQQQ below, and assess how they stack up in performance, liquidity, risk, exposure, holdings, and more, helping you select the best ETF for your investments.
Find out how industry players manage ETF portfolios. Discover our library of Model portfolios
PGJ vs CQQQ performance and flow charts
Performance
Cumulative Flows
Historic performance and flows
Data as of 10/26/2026
| 1M | 3M | YTD | 1Y | 3Y | 5Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perf. | PGJ CQQQ | -4.13%-11.39% | -11.49%-21.16% | -25.60%-22.91% | -33.97%-29.18% | -7.15%+20.50% | -47.19%-41.36% |
| Flows | PGJ CQQQ | -$4M-$394M | -$5M-$592M | -$23M-$212M | -$34M-$269M | -$60M+$1.69B | -$13M+$1.65B |
Volatility and drawdown
| 3M | 1Y | 3Y | 5Y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volatility | PGJ CQQQ | +19.45%+22.50% | +22.94%+28.26% | +30.12%+29.76% | +42.06%+32.71% |
| Max drawdown | PGJ CQQQ | -18.23%-24.89% | -34.39%-31.89% | -36.97%-32.46% | -61.15%-61.50% |
| Max drawdown duration | PGJ CQQQ | 77d78d | 364d287d | 389d385d | 1805d1800d |
Trading data
PGJ | CQQQ | |
Last sale 10/27/2026 at 1:30 PM | $21.21 | $39.49 |
| Previous close 10/26/2026 | $21.22 | $40.03 |
| Consolidated volume 10/26/2026 | ||
| Average volume 30 days | ||
| Average discount or premium 30 days | ||
| Average Bid/Ask spread 30 days |
Replication quality
Data as of September 30, 2026
1-year trailing difference
Create an account to view replication metrics
Join for free
PGJ | CQQQ | |
|---|---|---|
| Tracking error | ||
| Tracking difference | ||
| 1 year cumulative return difference | ||
| Best | ||
| Worst | ||
| Daily return difference | ||
| Average | ||
| Worst | ||
Advertisement
Main metrics
Last update 10/27/2026 at 1:30 PM
Live
Closed
PGJ | CQQQ | |
|---|---|---|
| Last price | $21.21 | $39.49 |
| 1D performance | -0.05% | -1.35% |
| AuM | $77.77 M | $1.89 B |
| E/R | 0.7% | 0.65% |
Characteristics
PGJ | CQQQ | |
|---|---|---|
| Management strategy | Passive | Passive |
| Provider | Invesco | Invesco |
| Benchmark | NASDAQ Golden Dragon China Index | FTSE China Incl A 25% Technology Capped Index |
| N° of holdings | 68 | 174 |
| Asset class | Equities | Equities |
| Trailing 12m distribution yield | Join | Join |
| Inception date | December 9, 2004 | December 8, 2009 |
| ESG | No | No |
Advertisement
Exposure
Countries
PGJ
China
98.87%
Other
1.13%
CQQQ
China
86.65%
Ireland
10.9%
Other
2.45%
Sectors
PGJ
Technology
32.25%
Consumer Non-Cycl.
20.82%
Consumer Services
16.02%
Consumer Cyclical.
15.8%
Industrials
8.77%
Other
6.34%
CQQQ
Technology
65.99%
Consumer Non-Cycl.
10.9%
Consumer Services
10.74%
Other
12.37%
Advertisement
Diversification
PGJ
Total weight of top 15 holdings out of 15
74.13%
CQQQ
Total weight of top 15 holdings out of 15
60.76%
Top 15 holdings
Data as of August 31, 2026
PGJ
Yum China Holdings, Inc.
8.83%
JD.com, Inc.
8.24%
Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.
7.81%
NetEase, Inc.
6.54%
Baidu, Inc.
5.98%
Kanzhun Ltd.
4.66%
H World Group Ltd.
4.38%
New Oriental Education & Technology Group, Inc.
4.02%
Maase, Inc.
3.95%
Full Truck Alliance Co., Ltd.
3.83%
Vipshop Holdings Ltd.
3.71%
TAL Education Group
3.26%
NIO, Inc.
3.25%
Tencent Music Entertainment Group
3.13%
KE Holdings, Inc.
2.55%
CQQQ
PDD Holdings, Inc.
10.90%
Meituan
10.38%
Tencent Holdings Ltd.
10.11%
Baidu, Inc.
7.54%
Kuaishou Technology
3.86%
Hua Hong Grace Semiconductor Ltd.
3.26%
Cambricon Technologies Corp. Ltd.
1.99%
Kingboard Laminates Holdings Ltd.
1.89%
Hygon Information Technology Co., Ltd.
1.73%
SenseTime Group, Inc.
1.67%
Horizon Robotics
1.61%
NAURA Technology Group Co., Ltd.
1.58%
Sunny Optical Technology (Group) Co., Ltd.
1.56%
Bilibili, Inc.
1.41%
Tencent Music Entertainment Group
1.28%
Frequently asked questions about PGJ and CQQQ
How have the PGJ and CQQQ ETFs performed in 2026?
As of October 26, 2026, PGJ is down -25.6% year-to-date (YTD), while CQQQ has lost -22.91%. That puts CQQQ better performer ahead so far this year.
Which ETF is attracting more investor money: PGJ or CQQQ?
Year-to-date, the PGJ ETF saw -$23M in flows, compared to -$212M for CQQQ.
Which ETF is more volatile: PGJ or CQQQ?
Over the past year, PGJ had a volatility of 22.94%, while CQQQ experienced 28.26%.
Which ETF is bigger: PGJ or CQQQ?
As of October 26, 2026, PGJ holds $77.77 M in assets under management (AUM), while CQQQ manages $1.89 B.
What sectors do the PGJ and CQQQ ETFs invest in?
PGJ leans toward sectors like Technology, Consumer Non-Cyclicals and Consumer Services. Meanwhile, CQQQ focuses on Technology, Consumer Non-Cyclicals and Consumer Services.
What are the top holdings of the PGJ ETF and CQQQ ETF?
PGJ top holdings include Yum China Holdings, Inc., JD.com, Inc. and Alibaba Group Holding Ltd.. CQQQ holds in its top three: PDD Holdings, Inc., Meituan and Tencent Holdings Ltd..
Which ETF is more diversified: PGJ or CQQQ?
PGJ holds 68 securities with 74.13% of its assets in the top 15. CQQQ has 180 securities and a top 15 weight of 60.76%.
Advertisement
Latest news about PGJ & CQQQ
Bridging the Gap: Unpacking the Divergence Between Chinese and US Markets
February 19, 2024
CQQQ
China's Stock Market Struggles Amid Evergrande Crisis
February 5, 2024
CQQQ
Advertisement
Advertisement
