What is the main difference in index tracking between CQQQ and KTEC?

CQQQ tracks the Nasdaq Golden Dragon China Index, focusing on Chinese tech companies listed in the US. KTEC tracks the Hang Seng Tech Index, targeting China tech firms listed in Hong Kong. Although both expose investors to Chinese tech, their holdings, listing venues, and regulatory contexts differ, affecting risk profiles.

Which fund has the lower expense ratio, CQQQ or KTEC?

KTEC has the lower expense ratio at 0.65% compared to CQQQ's 0.68%. The 0.03% difference may seem minimal, but over time, higher fees can erode returns, especially for long-term holders. Investors should consider how these costs impact overall net performance.

How do the top holdings of CQQQ and KTEC differ?

The top holdings vary significantly; for example, CQQQ has notable positions in Alibaba (BABA), PDD Holdings (PDD), and Baidu (BIDU), while KTEC includes Tencent (TME), NetEase (NTES), and JD.com. These differences highlight distinct exposures within the Chinese tech ecosystem.

Why do CQQQ and KTEC have different dividend yields?

Dividend yields depend on individual company policies and sector composition. CQQQ typically has a higher yield because it includes mature companies like Baidu that pay dividends. KTEC’s yield varies based on its holdings and recent dividend distributions.

Which fund is more suitable for income-focused investors?

For investors prioritising income, CQQQ may be more appealing due to its generally higher dividend yield. However, income should not be the only factor; considering growth potential and overall market exposure is crucial for a balanced investment strategy.

How do listing venues affect risks for CQQQ and KTEC?

US-listed companies in CQQQ face US regulations and potential delisting risks, while Hong Kong-listed stocks in KTEC face local regulatory changes and geopolitical risks. These factors influence volatility and investor exposure.

Are the performance histories of CQQQ and KTEC comparable?

CQQQ, established in December 2009, offers over a decade of performance data, including periods of high growth and decline. KTEC, launched in June 2021, has a shorter track record, limiting direct performance comparisons.

How do trading volumes and liquidity differ between the funds?

CQQQ, with $2.7 billion in net assets and a long history, generally offers better liquidity and tighter bid-ask spreads compared to KTEC, which has approximately $55 million in assets. This impacts trading costs and ease of entry/exit.

Which fund has more transparent fee and holding disclosures?

CQQQ provides clear information on its expense ratio and index tracking, along with regularly disclosed holdings. KTEC’s detailed information on expense ratios and holdings is not available, potentially complicating comparison for investors.

What does the difference in asset size indicate for investors?

A larger asset base often signals more stable fund operations and better liquidity, as seen with CQQQ's $2.7 billion. KTEC's smaller size of $55 million may lead to wider spreads and lower liquidity.

How do regulatory risks differ for these two ETFs?

CQQQ's US-listed holdings are subject to SEC rules and potential delisting risks. KTEC’s Hong Kong listings are exposed to mainland China regulations, which can be more unpredictable and less transparent, affecting overall risk.

CQQQ vs KTEC

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

This page compares Invesco China Technology ETF (CQQQ) and KraneShares Hang Seng Tech Index ETF (KTEC). It reviews expense ratios (0.65% vs 0.69%), dividend yields (2.35% vs 4.25%), top holdings and how each fund tracks Greater China technology markets. Educational content, not financial advice.

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

CQQQ

Metric

KTEC

0.65%

Expense Ratio

0.69%

2.35%

Dividend Yield

4.25%

$2.71B

Net Assets

$54.60M

188

Holdings

Dec 8, 2009

Inception Date

Jun 9, 2021

–

Index Tracked

–

Greater China Region

Fund Category

Greater China Region

CQQQ costs about $4.00 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 FXI

Compare CQQQ and FXI on fees, holdings, and dividends. CQQQ charges 0.65% yield 2.35%; FXI charges 0.74% yield 1.95%. Review data for research.

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.

Investment Analysis

CQQQ

Pros

Established track record dating from December 2009 demonstrates long-term consistency.
Substantial $2.7 billion net assets support better trading liquidity and lower spreads.
Higher top holding weight provides a specific, identifiable concentration in PDD.

Considerations

Relatively high expense ratio of 0.65% increases annual investor costs.
Index tracking methodology and sector weights are not available for independent verification.
Modest dividend yield of 2.35% offers lower income compared to similar alternatives.

KTEC

Pros

Higher dividend yield of 4.25% provides greater potential income generation.
Focused mandate on Hang Seng Tech targets a specific technological sector exposure.
Lower expense ratio of 0.69% compared to other niche ETFs may improve returns.

Considerations

Significant liquidity risks due to small $55 million net assets.
Newer inception date of June 2009 limits long-term performance history.
Top holdings and issuer details are not available for comprehensive analysis.

About CQQQ and KTEC

CQQQ (CQQQ)

The Invesco China Technology ETF offers investors exposure to companies involved in the technology sector within Greater China. Launched in December 2009, this fund has grown to hold assets worth approximately USD 2.71 billion, comprising around 188 holdings. It targets key areas such as internet services, software, and hardware, providing a diversified approach to some of the region's most dynamic tech firms. The fund operates with an expense ratio of 0.65% and currently reports a dividend yield of 2.35%. While the potential for growth in the Chinese tech sector is significant, investors should be aware that emerging market assets can experience substantial volatility. Values may fall as well as rise, and returns are not guaranteed. This ETF is suitable for those seeking general exposure to this specific sector, but it is important to consider your own risk tolerance and investment goals before investing. Always remember that this information is educational and does not constitute personalised financial advice.

KTEC (KTEC)

The KraneShares Hang Seng Tech Index ETF (KTEC) offers investors exposure to the dynamic technology sector in Greater China. As an exchange-traded fund, it seeks to track the performance of a specific basket of tech-related companies operating in China and Hong Kong. Launched in June 2021, the fund holds 31 distinct positions, providing a focused view on innovation and digital growth within the region. With an expense ratio of 0.69% and net assets of USD 55 million, it remains accessible for those interested in sector-specific themes. While KTEC currently reports a dividend yield of 4.25%, investors should remember that income levels and share prices can fluctuate. This ETF suits those looking to diversify within the Asian technology landscape, though it carries the inherent risks of regional regulatory changes and market volatility.

Buy CQQQ or KTEC in Nemo

🆓

Zero Commission

Trade stocks, ETFs, and more with zero commission. Keep more of your returns.

🔒

Trusted & Regulated

Part of Exinity Group 2015, serving over a million customers globally.

💰

6% Interest on Cash

Earn 6% AER on uninvested cash with daily interest payments.

CQQQ vs KTEC

Fund Snapshot