CGRO vs. CNYA

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

CGRO (CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF) and CNYA (iShares MSCI China A ETF) are both China Equities funds. CGRO is actively managed, while CNYA is passively managed. Over the past year, CGRO returned -22.42% vs 35.33% for CNYA. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGRO charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for CNYA.

Performance

CGRO vs. CNYA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) and iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGRO achieves a -25.74% return, which is significantly lower than CNYA's 10.91% return.

CGRO

• 1D: -2.38%
• 1M: -14.29%
• YTD: -25.74%
• 6M: -26.27%
• 1Y: -22.42%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CNYA

• 1D: 1.92%
• 1M: 1.81%
• YTD: 10.91%
• 6M: 11.36%
• 1Y: 35.33%
• 3Y*: 13.10%
• 5Y*: -0.39%
• 10Y*: 6.74%

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

CGRO vs. CNYA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	-25.74%	20.23%	14.75%	1.84%
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF	10.91%	26.48%	10.78%	-2.61%

Correlation

The correlation between CGRO and CNYA is 0.63, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 17, 2023	0.67

The correlation between CGRO and CNYA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGRO vs. CNYA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGRO	CNYA
Consumer Cyclical	44.1%	5.2%
Industrials	16.0%	15.4%
Technology	14.5%	31.7%
Communication Services	13.7%	1.3%
Healthcare	5.8%	3.9%
Financial Services	2.7%	17.6%
Consumer Defensive	2.1%	6.8%
Real Estate	1.1%	0.6%
Basic Materials	-	11.2%
Energy	-	3.1%
Utilities	-	3.3%

Return for Risk

CGRO vs. CNYA — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGRO

CGRO Risk / Return Rank: 3
CGRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
CGRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
CGRO Omega Ratio Rank: 2
CGRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
CGRO Martin Ratio Rank: 3

CNYA

CNYA Risk / Return Rank: 74
CNYA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
CNYA Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
CNYA Omega Ratio Rank: 67
CNYA Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
CNYA Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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. CNYA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) and iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA). 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	CNYA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.01	1.94	-2.95
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.39	2.66	-4.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.85	1.35	-0.50
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.62	4.68	-5.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.36	12.82	-14.18

CGRO vs. CNYA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGRO Sharpe Ratio is -1.01, which is lower than the CNYA Sharpe Ratio of 1.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGRO and CNYA, 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. CNYA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGRO drawdown since its inception was -36.53%, smaller than the maximum CNYA drawdown of -49.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGRO and CNYA.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGRO	CNYA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.53%	-49.49%	+12.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-36.53%	-7.59%	-28.94%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-33.35%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-44.65%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-49.49%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-36.53%	-12.14%	-24.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.69%	-20.64%	+9.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.49%	2.76%	+13.73%

Volatility

CGRO vs. CNYA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) is 6.33%, while iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) has a volatility of 7.38%. This indicates that CGRO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNYA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGRO	CNYA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.33%	7.38%	-1.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.12%	13.62%	+2.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.30%	18.33%	+3.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.86%	23.92%	+4.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.86%	23.52%	+5.34%

CGRO vs. CNYA - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGRO has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than CNYA's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGRO vs. CNYA - Dividend Comparison

CGRO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.77%, more than CNYA's 1.69% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	3.77%	2.48%	2.47%	0.21%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF	1.69%	1.92%	2.51%	4.23%	2.69%	1.11%	1.06%	1.21%	3.92%	0.97%	1.38%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGRO and CNYA in my portfolio?

CGRO and CNYA have a correlation of 0.63, 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 CNYA?

CNYA has higher volatility (7.38%) compared to CGRO (6.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGRO dropped -36.53% vs CNYA's -49.49%.

Which ETF is better, CGRO or CNYA?

On 1-year performance, CNYA leads with 35.33% vs -22.42% for CGRO. On fees, CNYA is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, CGRO has been the lower-risk option at 6.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGRO or CNYA?

Over the 1-year period, CNYA has performed better with a 35.33% return vs -22.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGRO or CNYA?

CNYA is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CGRO.

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

CGRO has the higher dividend yield at 3.77%, compared with 1.69% for CNYA.

What is the main difference between CGRO and CNYA?

They also come from different issuers: CoreValues Alpha and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CGRO and 0.60% for CNYA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CNYA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.94 vs -1.01), 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.