CGRO vs. BIL

Last updated Jun 21, 2026

CGRO (CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF) and BIL (SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGRO is a China Equities fund actively managed by CoreValues Alpha, while BIL is a Government Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg 1-3 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index. CGRO is actively managed, while BIL is passively managed. Over the past year, CGRO returned -14.71% vs 3.85% for BIL. At a correlation of -0.04, they often move in opposite directions. CGRO charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for BIL.

Performance

CGRO vs. BIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) and SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGRO achieves a -21.47% return, which is significantly lower than BIL's 1.66% return.

CGRO

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: -9.84%
• YTD: -21.47%
• 6M: -22.69%
• 1Y: -14.71%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BIL

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.29%
• YTD: 1.66%
• 6M: 1.75%
• 1Y: 3.85%
• 3Y*: 4.63%
• 5Y*: 3.45%
• 10Y*: 2.20%

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

CGRO vs. BIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	-21.47%	20.23%	14.75%	1.84%
BIL SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF	1.66%	4.15%	5.19%	1.11%

Correlation

The correlation between CGRO and BIL is -0.08, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 17, 2023	-0.04

Return for Risk

CGRO vs. BIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGRO

CGRO Risk / Return Rank: 4
CGRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
CGRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
CGRO Omega Ratio Rank: 3
CGRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
CGRO Martin Ratio Rank: 4

BIL

BIL Risk / Return Rank: 100
BIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Omega Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

CGRO vs. BIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) and SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL). 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.

	CGRO	BIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.74	19.53	-20.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.96	174.17	-175.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.89	87.91	-87.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.50	355.36	-355.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.04	2,817.85	-2,818.89

CGRO vs. BIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGRO Sharpe Ratio is -0.74, which is lower than the BIL Sharpe Ratio of 19.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGRO and BIL, 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

CGRO vs. BIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGRO drawdown since its inception was -32.88%, which is greater than BIL's maximum drawdown of -0.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGRO and BIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGRO	BIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.88%	-0.78%	-32.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-32.88%	-0.01%	-32.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-0.01%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.09%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-0.21%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-32.88%	0.00%	-32.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.55%	-0.26%	-10.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	15.90%	0.00%	+15.90%

Volatility

CGRO vs. BIL - Volatility Comparison

CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) has a higher volatility of 5.94% compared to SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL) at 0.07%. This indicates that CGRO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGRO	BIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.94%	0.07%	+5.87%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.88%	0.14%	+15.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.37%	0.20%	+22.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.85%	0.26%	+28.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.85%	0.26%	+28.59%

CGRO vs. BIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGRO has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than BIL's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGRO vs. BIL - Dividend Comparison

CGRO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.57%, less than BIL's 3.85% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
BIL SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF	3.85%	4.13%	5.03%	4.92%	1.35%	0.00%	0.30%	2.05%	1.66%	0.68%	0.07%
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	3.57%	2.48%	2.47%	0.21%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGRO and BIL in my portfolio?

CGRO and BIL have a correlation of -0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGRO or BIL?

CGRO has higher volatility (5.94%) compared to BIL (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGRO dropped -32.88% vs BIL's -0.78%.

Which ETF is better, CGRO or BIL?

On 1-year performance, BIL leads with 3.85% vs -14.71% for CGRO. On fees, BIL is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, BIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGRO or BIL?

Over the 1-year period, BIL has performed better with a 3.85% return vs -14.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGRO or BIL?

BIL is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CGRO.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CGRO or BIL?

BIL has the higher dividend yield at 3.85%, compared with 3.57% for CGRO.

What is the main difference between CGRO and BIL?

CGRO is categorized as China Equities, while BIL is Government Bonds. They also come from different issuers: CoreValues Alpha and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CGRO and 0.14% for BIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (19.53 vs -0.74), 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.