PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CGRO vs. ECNS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CGRO vs. ECNS

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CGRO (CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF) and ECNS (iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGRO is a China Equities fund actively managed by CoreValues Alpha, while ECNS is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI China Small Cap Index. CGRO is actively managed, while ECNS is passively managed. Over the past year, CGRO returned -12.15% vs 11.26% for ECNS. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGRO charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for ECNS.

Performance

CGRO vs. ECNS - 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 Small-Cap ETF (ECNS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGRO achieves a -15.64% return, which is significantly lower than ECNS's -4.50% return.

CGRO

1D
-0.69%
1M
-6.61%
YTD
-15.64%
6M
-16.66%
1Y
-12.15%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

ECNS

1D
-0.01%
1M
-6.20%
YTD
-4.50%
6M
-7.71%
1Y
11.26%
3Y*
7.75%
5Y*
-6.97%
10Y*
1.77%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CGRO vs. ECNS - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023
CGRO
CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF		-15.64%20.23%14.75%2.03%
ECNS
iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF		-4.50%36.49%5.64%-0.88%

Correlation

The correlation between CGRO and ECNS is 0.74, 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

0.74

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 18, 2023

0.79

The correlation between CGRO and ECNS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGRO vs. ECNS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CGRO
ECNS

Consumer Cyclical

43.9%
8.8%

Industrials

15.6%
16.2%

Technology

14.8%
16.9%

Communication Services

13.3%
4.5%

Healthcare

5.7%
19.8%

Financial Services

3.3%
4.4%

Consumer Defensive

2.3%
4.0%

Real Estate

1.1%
8.8%

Basic Materials

-

7.8%

Energy

-

3.4%

Utilities

-

2.6%

Consumer Cyclical

CGRO
43.9%
ECNS
8.8%

Industrials

CGRO
15.6%
ECNS
16.2%

Technology

CGRO
14.8%
ECNS
16.9%

Communication Services

CGRO
13.3%
ECNS
4.5%

Healthcare

CGRO
5.7%
ECNS
19.8%

Financial Services

CGRO
3.3%
ECNS
4.4%

Consumer Defensive

CGRO
2.3%
ECNS
4.0%

Real Estate

CGRO
1.1%
ECNS
8.8%

Basic Materials

CGRO

-

ECNS
7.8%

Energy

CGRO

-

ECNS
3.4%

Utilities

CGRO

-

ECNS
2.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF

iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF

Often compared with CGRO:
CGRO vs. KTECCGRO vs. FLCHCGRO vs. MCHICGRO vs. CGDVCGRO vs. FXICGRO vs. CQQQCGRO vs. VOO
Often compared with ECNS:
ECNS vs. ASHSECNS vs. MCHIECNS vs. CNXTECNS vs. DFAEECNS vs. CQQQECNS vs. FLCHECNS vs. EWT

Return for Risk

CGRO vs. ECNS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CGRO
CGRO Risk / Return Rank: 55
Overall Rank
CGRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CGRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
Sortino Ratio Rank
CGRO Omega Ratio Rank: 55
Omega Ratio Rank
CGRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
Calmar Ratio Rank
CGRO Martin Ratio Rank: 55
Martin Ratio Rank
ECNS
ECNS Risk / Return Rank: 1717
Overall Rank
ECNS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1818
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ECNS Sortino Ratio Rank: 1818
Sortino Ratio Rank
ECNS Omega Ratio Rank: 1919
Omega Ratio Rank
ECNS Calmar Ratio Rank: 1717
Calmar Ratio Rank
ECNS Martin Ratio Rank: 1515
Martin Ratio Rank
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. ECNS - 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 Small-Cap ETF (ECNS). 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.

CGROECNSDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
-0.55
0.54

-1.09

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
-0.66
0.85

-1.51

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.93

1.11

-0.19

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.44

0.63

-1.06

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.83

1.22

-2.05

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CGRO vs. ECNS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGRO Sharpe Ratio is -0.55, which is lower than the ECNS Sharpe Ratio of 0.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGRO and ECNS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

CGROECNSDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.55

0.54

-1.09

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

—

-0.24

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.07

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.23

0.02

+0.21

Drawdowns

CGRO vs. ECNS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGRO drawdown since its inception was -27.90%, smaller than the maximum ECNS drawdown of -63.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGRO and ECNS.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CGROECNSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-27.90%

-63.43%

+35.53%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-27.90%

-18.09%

-9.81%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

—

-31.72%

—

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-59.61%

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-63.43%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-27.90%

-38.53%

+10.63%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.25%

-29.39%

+19.14%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

14.67%

9.21%

+5.46%

Volatility

CGRO vs. ECNS - Volatility Comparison

CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) has a higher volatility of 7.68% compared to iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF (ECNS) at 5.65%. This indicates that CGRO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ECNS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CGROECNSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.68%

5.65%

+2.03%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.54%

12.87%

+2.67%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

22.47%

20.91%

+1.56%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

28.97%

29.44%

-0.47%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

28.97%

25.89%

+3.08%

CGRO vs. ECNS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGRO has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than ECNS's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGRO vs. ECNS - Dividend Comparison

CGRO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.32%, less than ECNS's 6.49% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CGRO
CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF		3.32%2.48%2.47%0.21%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
ECNS
iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF		6.49%6.20%5.98%4.89%3.54%4.87%3.59%3.23%6.16%3.18%4.29%3.58%

Frequently Asked Questions

CGRO and ECNS have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CGRO has higher volatility (7.68%) compared to ECNS (5.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGRO dropped -27.90% vs ECNS's -63.43%.

On 1-year performance, ECNS leads with 11.26% vs -12.15% for CGRO. On fees, ECNS is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, ECNS has been the lower-risk option at 5.65%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, ECNS has performed better with a 11.26% return vs -12.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ECNS is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CGRO.

ECNS has the higher dividend yield at 6.49%, compared with 3.32% for CGRO.

CGRO is categorized as China Equities, while ECNS is Asia Pacific Equities. They also come from different issuers: CoreValues Alpha and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CGRO and 0.59% for ECNS.

ECNS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.54 vs -0.55), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CGRO and ECNS

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer