What do the expense ratios of 0.65% for CQQQ and 0.74% for FXI actually mean for an investor?

The expense ratio is the annual fee charged by a fund to manage its assets. A lower expense ratio is generally more cost-efficient. CQQQ, with a 0.65% ratio, is cheaper to hold than FXI, which has a 0.74% ratio. The difference is 0.09 percentage points. Over many years, even small fee differences can compound, slightly reducing the net return an investor sees. Understanding this helps you evaluate the long-term cost of ownership for China-focused technology ETFs.

How do I interpret the net assets of $2.7 billion for CQQQ compared to $4.1 billion for FXI?

Net assets represent the total market value of all the stocks held by the ETF. A larger net asset base, like FXI's $4.1 billion, typically suggests better liquidity, meaning it is easier to buy or sell shares without significantly moving the price. CQQQ has $2.7 billion in net assets. For most retail investors, both figures indicate substantial funds, but the larger size of FXI might offer slightly tighter bid-ask spreads during trading sessions.

Why does the inception date matter when comparing CQQQ and FXI?

The inception date shows how long a fund has been in existence. FXI was launched on 5 October 2004, while CQQQ started on 8 December 2009. A longer history allows investors to review a wider range of market conditions and performance records. However, a newer fund is not inherently worse; it may simply reflect a newer investment strategy or sector focus, such as CQQQ's emphasis on the evolving technology sector. The date helps contextualise the amount of available historical data.

What is the difference in sector exposure between CQQQ and FXI?

CQQQ is specifically designed to target the technology sector within China, providing concentrated exposure to firms involved in software, internet services, and tech hardware. In contrast, FXI tracks large-cap companies across the broader Chinese market, including financials, industrials, and consumer goods, not just technology. This means CQQQ offers a narrower, sector-focused approach, whereas FXI provides a more diversified, economy-wide view of major Chinese firms. Your choice depends on whether you want specific sector growth or broad large-cap stability.

How do the dividend yields of 2.35% for CQQQ and 1.95% for FXI compare?

Dividend yield is the annual dividend payment divided by the share price. CQQQ currently offers a higher yield at 2.35% compared to FXI's 1.95%. For income-focused investors, this suggests CQQQ pays out more relative to its price. However, yield alone does not guarantee total returns. In China-focused ETFs, yields can fluctuate based on company decisions and market cycles. It is important to view these figures as current snapshots rather than fixed promises, especially when comparing technology versus large-cap strategies.

What does PDD Holdings' 10.64% weight in CQQQ mean for risk?

A single holding making up 10.64% of a fund represents significant concentration risk. In CQQQ, PDD Holdings is the largest position. If PDD's stock price declines sharply due to company-specific issues or regulatory changes, it could disproportionately drag down the overall value of the CQQQ ETF. While this concentration might drive higher returns if PDD performs well, it increases volatility compared to funds with more evenly distributed holdings. Investors should always check the top holdings list to understand which companies are driving the fund's performance.

Is there any overlap in the top 10 holdings between CQQQ and FXI?

Based on the available data, there are no shared stocks in the top 10 holdings lists between CQQQ and FXI. The top holding for CQQQ is PDD at 10.64%, followed by TME at 1.22%. For FXI, the top holdings data is not available, but the lack of listed overlaps suggests these two funds hold very different companies. This distinction reinforces that CQQQ is a technology-specific vehicle, while FXI is a broad large-cap fund, leading to different portfolio compositions and potential performance drivers.

How do ETFs like CQQQ and FXI provide exposure to the Chinese market?

Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) like CQQQ and FXI are baskets of securities that trade on stock exchanges. They allow investors to buy a single share that represents ownership in many Chinese companies, rather than purchasing individual foreign stocks directly. CQQQ achieves this by holding technology firms, while FXI holds large-cap leaders. This structure simplifies access to overseas markets, though it subjects the ETFs to market risks such as currency fluctuations, regulatory changes in China, and global economic trends affecting Chinese exports and growth.

What does 'large-cap' mean in the context of FXI?

Large-cap refers to companies with a large market capitalisation, meaning their total value in the stock market is substantial. FXI invests in these established Chinese giants. Generally, large-cap companies are viewed as more stable and less volatile than smaller growth firms, although they may offer lower potential for explosive short-term growth compared to a focused sector fund like CQQQ. This classification indicates FXI aims to capture the performance of the mature, heavy-weight players in the Chinese economy across various sectors.

Are there any missing data points that could affect my analysis of these funds?

Yes, key data is unavailable for this comparison. Specifically, the index tracked by both CQQQ and FXI is not available, nor are sector weights for either fund. Additionally, FXI's top holdings list is not provided. Without this information, it is difficult to fully assess the exact methodology each fund uses to select stocks or verify the precise sector breakdown. Investors should check the fund providers' official documents for updated holdings and tracking indices to get a complete picture.

Which fund might align with an investor seeking stable, broad China exposure?

An investor seeking broad, stable exposure to the Chinese economy would typically look at FXI. Its focus on large-cap equities generally offers more stability than a sector-specific fund, and its longer history since 2004 provides more data. However, it has a slightly higher expense ratio of 0.74% compared to CQQQ's 0.65%. This choice is about prioritising diversified large-cap stability over the higher potential growth and specific technology focus offered by CQQQ. Both funds carry inherent market risks.

Why might someone choose CQQQ over FXI for their portfolio?

Someone might choose CQQQ if they want targeted exposure to China's technology sector, which is often associated with higher growth potential than traditional industries. CQQQ offers a lower expense ratio of 0.65% and a higher current dividend yield of 2.35%. However, this comes with higher concentration risk, exemplified by PDD Holdings' 10.64% weight, and shorter historical data since its 2009 inception. Choosing CQQQ indicates a preference for sector-specific growth and cost efficiency over the broader market diversification provided by FXI.

CQQQ vs FXI

Two funds, one decision: we compare cost, performance and what each ETF actually holds in October 2026.

Compare CQQQ and FXI, two China-focused ETFs. CQQQ tracks technology stocks with a 0.65% fee, while FXI holds large-cap companies at 0.74%. This page reviews fees, dividends, holdings, and market tracking methods. Educational content, not financial advice.

Compare CQQQ and FXI, two China-focused ETFs. CQQQ tracks technology stocks with a 0.65% fee, while FXI holds large-cap companies at 0.74%. This page reviews fees, dividends, holdings, and market trac...

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

CQQQ

Metric

FXI

0.65%

Expense Ratio

0.74%

2.35%

Dividend Yield

1.95%

$2.71B

Net Assets

$4.10B

188

Holdings

60

Dec 8, 2009

Inception Date

Oct 5, 2004

–

Index Tracked

–

Greater China Region

Fund Category

Greater China Region

CQQQ costs about $9.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

These funds do not share any of their top holdings.

Discover More Comparisons

CQQQ vs KSTR

Compare CQQQ vs KSTR China tech ETFs. Assess 0.65% vs 0.89% expense ratios, 2.35% vs 0.00% yields, and concentration in PDD for informed research.

CQQQ vs MCHI

Compare CQQQ and MCHI ETFs. Review expense ratios, net assets, dividend yields and holdings. Note index tracking data is not available for both funds.

CQQQ vs KWEB

Compare CQQQ and KWEB China tech ETFs. Review fees, holdings, dividends and tracking for Invesco China Technology and KraneShares CSI China Internet.

Investment Analysis

CQQQ

Pros

Invesco China Technology ETF features a lower expense ratio of 0.65 per cent than China Large-Cap ETF.
CQQQ offers a higher dividend yield of 2.35 per cent, enhancing income potential for investors.
Invesco China Technology ETF focuses on technology, providing targeted exposure to a high growth sector.

Considerations

CQQQ holds significantly lower net assets of $2.7 billion, which may impact liquidity for large trades.
Invesco China Technology ETF has a shorter history, launched in 2009, lacking long term track record.
PDD constitutes 10.64 per cent of holdings, creating concentration risk in a single company.

FXI

Pros

FXI has substantial net assets of $4.1 billion, generally supporting better liquidity and tighter trading spreads.
Established in 2004, China Large-Cap ETF provides a longer historical performance record for investors.
The fund focuses on large-cap equities, typically offering stability compared to smaller growth firms.

Considerations

With an expense ratio of 0.74 per cent, FXI is costlier to hold than CQQQ.
FXI’s dividend yield is lower at 1.95 per cent, reducing income relative to CQQQ.
Key top holdings data is unavailable, limiting transparency on current portfolio composition.

Related Market Insights

China Exports Explained | Trade Boom Sector Breakdown

Discover how China's 21.8% export surge impacts global markets. Explore top shipping, e-commerce, and mining stocks on Nemo's thematic investment platform.