BGCBX vs. LNGZX

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

BGCBX (Baillie Gifford China Equities Fund) and LNGZX (Columbia Greater China Fund) are both China Equities funds. Over the past 5 years, BGCBX returned -5.09%/yr vs -8.29%/yr for LNGZX. Their correlation of 0.94 means they have usually moved in the same direction. BGCBX charges 0.96%/yr vs 1.25%/yr for LNGZX.

Performance

BGCBX vs. LNGZX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Baillie Gifford China Equities Fund (BGCBX) and Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BGCBX achieves a -2.61% return, which is significantly higher than LNGZX's -10.01% return.

BGCBX

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 3.38%
• 6M: -4.95%
• YTD: -2.61%
• 1Y: 12.07%
• 3Y*: 7.46%
• 5Y*: -5.09%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -6.62%

LNGZX

• 1D: 1.10%
• 1M: 4.90%
• 6M: -13.12%
• YTD: -10.01%
• 1Y: -1.24%
• 3Y*: 2.87%
• 5Y*: -8.29%
• 10Y*: 3.12%
• ALL TIME*: 7.32%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BGCBX Baillie Gifford China Equities Fund	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
LNGZX Columbia Greater China Fund	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

BGCBX vs. LNGZX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BGCBX Baillie Gifford China Equities Fund	-2.61%	36.51%	9.74%	-18.00%	-28.56%	-17.30%
LNGZX Columbia Greater China Fund	-10.01%	27.49%	12.29%	-18.70%	-28.42%	-24.06%

Correlation

The correlation between BGCBX and LNGZX is 0.94, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.94
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.94
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 7, 2021	0.94

The correlation between BGCBX and LNGZX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BGCBX vs. LNGZX — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BGCBX

BGCBX Risk / Return Rank: 13
BGCBX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
BGCBX Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
BGCBX Omega Ratio Rank: 13
BGCBX Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
BGCBX Martin Ratio Rank: 11

LNGZX

LNGZX Risk / Return Rank: 3
LNGZX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
LNGZX Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
LNGZX Omega Ratio Rank: 3
LNGZX Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
LNGZX Martin Ratio Rank: 3

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BGCBX vs. LNGZX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Baillie Gifford China Equities Fund (BGCBX) and Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	BGCBX	LNGZX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.55	-0.14	+0.70
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.89	-0.05	+0.94
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	0.99	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.78	-0.13	+0.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.55	-0.26	+1.81

BGCBX vs. LNGZX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BGCBX Sharpe Ratio is 0.55, which is higher than the LNGZX Sharpe Ratio of -0.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BGCBX and LNGZX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

BGCBX vs. LNGZX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BGCBX drawdown since its inception was -59.07%, smaller than the maximum LNGZX drawdown of -73.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BGCBX and LNGZX.

Drawdown Indicators

	BGCBX	LNGZX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-59.07%	-73.37%	+14.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.48%	-23.54%	+10.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.77%	-23.98%	-2.79%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-56.22%	-56.81%	+0.59%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-67.94%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-30.28%	-53.07%	+22.79%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-38.03%	-26.68%	-11.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.76%	11.78%	-5.02%

Volatility

BGCBX vs. LNGZX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Baillie Gifford China Equities Fund (BGCBX) is 6.00%, while Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX) has a volatility of 6.68%. This indicates that BGCBX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LNGZX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BGCBX	LNGZX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.00%	6.68%	-0.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.55%	16.23%	-2.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.98%	21.82%	-2.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.53%	29.56%	-3.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.82%	26.62%	+0.20%

BGCBX vs. LNGZX - Expense Ratio Comparison

BGCBX has a 0.96% expense ratio, which is lower than LNGZX's 1.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

BGCBX vs. LNGZX - Dividend Comparison

BGCBX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.94%, less than LNGZX's 2.09% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BGCBX Baillie Gifford China Equities Fund	0.94%	0.91%	2.03%	1.50%	0.66%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LNGZX Columbia Greater China Fund	2.09%	1.88%	1.21%	0.67%	0.00%	0.00%	4.29%	1.40%	5.85%	1.20%	0.00%	4.54%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BGCBX and LNGZX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, BGCBX and LNGZX move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, BGCBX or LNGZX?

LNGZX has higher volatility (6.68%) compared to BGCBX (6.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BGCBX dropped -59.07% vs LNGZX's -73.37%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BGCBX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.55 vs -0.14), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.