ACEYX vs. MCSMX
Compare and contrast key facts about AB All China Equity Portfolio (ACEYX) and Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX).
ACEYX is managed by AllianceBernstein. It was launched on Jul 24, 2018. MCSMX is managed by Matthews. It was launched on May 30, 2011.
Performance
ACEYX vs. MCSMX - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
ACEYX vs. MCSMX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACEYX AB All China Equity Portfolio | -6.20% | 33.91% | 17.44% | -10.96% | -26.65% | -14.65% | 25.38% | 37.67% | -21.60% |
MCSMX Matthews China Small Companies Fund | 10.66% | 28.85% | 2.82% | -17.50% | -31.25% | 6.71% | 82.73% | 35.41% | -24.97% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ACEYX achieves a -6.20% return, which is significantly lower than MCSMX's 10.66% return.
ACEYX
- 1D
- 0.63%
- 1M
- -9.15%
- YTD
- -6.20%
- 6M
- -10.46%
- 1Y
- 12.86%
- 3Y*
- 7.76%
- 5Y*
- -3.85%
- 10Y*
- —
MCSMX
- 1D
- -0.63%
- 1M
- -10.72%
- YTD
- 10.66%
- 6M
- 6.47%
- 1Y
- 31.98%
- 3Y*
- 6.45%
- 5Y*
- -2.56%
- 10Y*
- 11.23%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
ACEYX vs. MCSMX - Expense Ratio Comparison
ACEYX has a 1.25% expense ratio, which is lower than MCSMX's 1.41% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
ACEYX vs. MCSMX — Risk / Return Rank
ACEYX
MCSMX
ACEYX vs. MCSMX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB All China Equity Portfolio (ACEYX) and Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX). 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.
| ACEYX | MCSMX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.57 | 1.48 | -0.91 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 0.87 | 1.94 | -1.07 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.12 | 1.29 | -0.17 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.66 | 1.32 | -0.65 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.04 | 4.46 | -2.41 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ACEYX | MCSMX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.57 | 1.48 | -0.91 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.17 | -0.11 | -0.06 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.51 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.06 | 0.34 | -0.28 |
Correlation
The correlation between ACEYX and MCSMX is 0.81, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
ACEYX vs. MCSMX - Dividend Comparison
ACEYX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.29%, more than MCSMX's 2.01% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACEYX AB All China Equity Portfolio | 5.29% | 4.97% | 3.75% | 2.17% | 1.39% | 1.81% | 0.43% | 1.13% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
MCSMX Matthews China Small Companies Fund | 2.01% | 2.23% | 1.35% | 2.36% | 1.78% | 26.38% | 16.98% | 1.03% | 2.25% | 5.66% | 4.79% | 8.88% |
Drawdowns
ACEYX vs. MCSMX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ACEYX drawdown since its inception was -57.58%, roughly equal to the maximum MCSMX drawdown of -55.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACEYX and MCSMX.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| ACEYX | MCSMX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -57.58% | -55.77% | -1.81% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -14.86% | -15.69% | +0.83% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -51.51% | -53.98% | +2.47% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -55.77% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -30.42% | -24.92% | -5.50% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -27.81% | -20.31% | -7.50% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.01% | 5.63% | -0.62% |
Volatility
ACEYX vs. MCSMX - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for AB All China Equity Portfolio (ACEYX) is 6.13%, while Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) has a volatility of 8.13%. This indicates that ACEYX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MCSMX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| ACEYX | MCSMX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.13% | 8.13% | -2.00% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.51% | 14.70% | -1.19% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.99% | 22.12% | -1.13% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 23.22% | 24.01% | -0.79% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.65% | 21.99% | +1.66% |