CGFIX vs. GLLSX

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CGFIX (abrdn Global Absolute Return Strategies Fund) and GLLSX (abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund) are both mutual funds - CGFIX is a Macro Trading fund managed by Aberdeen, while GLLSX is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund managed by Aberdeen. Over the past 10 years, CGFIX returned 1.88%/yr vs 15.00%/yr for GLLSX. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CGFIX charges 0.78%/yr vs 1.23%/yr for GLLSX.

Performance

CGFIX vs. GLLSX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in abrdn Global Absolute Return Strategies Fund (CGFIX) and abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund (GLLSX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGFIX achieves a 1.26% return, which is significantly lower than GLLSX's 45.96% return. Over the past 10 years, CGFIX has underperformed GLLSX with an annualized return of 1.88%, while GLLSX has yielded a comparatively higher 15.00% annualized return.

CGFIX

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 0.57%
• YTD: 1.26%
• 6M: 1.22%
• 1Y: 6.03%
• 3Y*: 4.62%
• 5Y*: 0.23%
• 10Y*: 1.88%

GLLSX

• 1D: -0.42%
• 1M: 8.91%
• YTD: 45.96%
• 6M: 50.30%
• 1Y: 85.77%
• 3Y*: 29.18%
• 5Y*: 17.96%
• 10Y*: 15.00%

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

CGFIX vs. GLLSX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CGFIX abrdn Global Absolute Return Strategies Fund	1.26%	5.79%	4.85%	-2.54%	-9.99%	1.39%	6.37%	7.26%	0.97%	1.62%
GLLSX abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund	45.96%	34.81%	0.73%	21.35%	-23.04%	36.50%	15.93%	23.64%	-11.50%	23.06%

Correlation

The correlation between CGFIX and GLLSX is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.27
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.21
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.10
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 6, 2012	0.11

The correlation between CGFIX and GLLSX shifts across timeframes, from 0.10 (5 years) to 0.27 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

CGFIX vs. GLLSX — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CGFIX

CGFIX Risk / Return Rank: 48
CGFIX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
CGFIX Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
CGFIX Omega Ratio Rank: 55
CGFIX Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
CGFIX Martin Ratio Rank: 40

GLLSX

GLLSX Risk / Return Rank: 95
GLLSX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
GLLSX Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
GLLSX Omega Ratio Rank: 94
GLLSX Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
GLLSX Martin Ratio Rank: 96

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

CGFIX vs. GLLSX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for abrdn Global Absolute Return Strategies Fund (CGFIX) and abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund (GLLSX). 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.

	CGFIX	GLLSX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	4.12	-2.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.01	4.76	-1.75
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.74	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.36	6.14	-3.78
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.47	24.40	-15.93
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CGFIX vs. GLLSX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGFIX Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is lower than the GLLSX Sharpe Ratio of 4.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGFIX and GLLSX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CGFIX	GLLSX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.09	4.12	-2.03
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.04	1.00	-0.96
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.40	0.85	-0.45
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.89	0.69	+0.20

Drawdowns

CGFIX vs. GLLSX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGFIX drawdown since its inception was -20.28%, smaller than the maximum GLLSX drawdown of -32.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGFIX and GLLSX.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGFIX	GLLSX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.28%	-32.59%	+12.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.78%	-14.39%	+11.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.09%	-20.95%	+13.86%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.28%	-30.02%	+9.74%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-20.28%	-32.59%	+12.31%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.76%	-0.42%	-1.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.19%	-7.92%	+4.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.77%	3.61%	-2.84%

Volatility

CGFIX vs. GLLSX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for abrdn Global Absolute Return Strategies Fund (CGFIX) is 1.09%, while abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund (GLLSX) has a volatility of 9.87%. This indicates that CGFIX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLLSX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGFIX	GLLSX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.09%	9.87%	-8.78%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.32%	19.06%	-16.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.14%	21.44%	-18.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.76%	18.09%	-12.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.71%	17.80%	-13.09%

CGFIX vs. GLLSX - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGFIX has a 0.78% expense ratio, which is lower than GLLSX's 1.23% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGFIX vs. GLLSX - Dividend Comparison

CGFIX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.15%, more than GLLSX's 1.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CGFIX abrdn Global Absolute Return Strategies Fund	6.15%	5.51%	6.43%	2.08%	0.00%	7.49%	0.23%	3.29%	6.05%	0.33%	1.12%	0.35%
GLLSX abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund	1.28%	1.88%	0.74%	0.77%	29.32%	22.85%	0.00%	3.38%	9.47%	8.40%	1.09%	0.94%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGFIX and GLLSX in my portfolio?

CGFIX and GLLSX have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGFIX or GLLSX?

GLLSX has higher volatility (9.87%) compared to CGFIX (1.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGFIX dropped -20.28% vs GLLSX's -32.59%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLLSX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.12 vs 2.09), 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.