CGRO vs. IBIC
CGRO (CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF) and IBIC (iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGRO is a China Equities fund actively managed by CoreValues, while IBIC is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. CGRO is actively managed, while IBIC is passively managed. Over the past year, CGRO returned -12.21% vs 4.02% for IBIC. Their -0.04 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. CGRO charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for IBIC.
Performance
CGRO vs. IBIC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGRO achieves a -12.97% return, which is significantly lower than IBIC's 2.67% return.
CGRO
- 1D
- 0.75%
- 1M
- 12.95%
- 6M
- -10.76%
- YTD
- -12.97%
- 1Y
- -12.21%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 7.45%
IBIC
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.21%
- 6M
- 2.37%
- YTD
- 2.67%
- 1Y
- 4.02%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 5.24%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $6.01K | $9.52K | $35.25K | |
| $1.04M | $809.24K | $530.96K |
CGRO vs. IBIC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF | -12.97% | 20.23% | 14.75% | 1.84% |
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF | 2.67% | 4.96% | 5.25% | 2.10% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGRO and IBIC is -0.10, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.10 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 17, 2023 | -0.04 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CGRO vs. IBIC — Risk / Return Rank
CGRO
IBIC
CGRO vs. IBIC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). 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 | IBIC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -5.11 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -8.71 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.93 | 2.09 | -1.16 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.34 | 15.07 | -15.41 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.63 | 51.54 | -52.18 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CGRO vs. IBIC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGRO drawdown since its inception was -36.53%, which is greater than IBIC's maximum drawdown of -0.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGRO and IBIC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGRO | IBIC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -36.53% | -0.90% | -35.63% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -36.53% | -0.27% | -36.26% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -25.62% | -0.08% | -25.54% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.47% | -0.10% | -11.37% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 19.35% | 0.08% | +19.27% |
Volatility
CGRO vs. IBIC - Volatility Comparison
CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) has a higher volatility of 6.15% compared to iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC) at 0.23%. This indicates that CGRO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBIC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CGRO | IBIC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.15% | 0.23% | +5.92% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 16.63% | 0.69% | +15.94% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.09% | 0.89% | +22.20% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 28.67% | 1.54% | +27.13% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 28.67% | 1.54% | +27.13% |
CGRO vs. IBIC - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGRO has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than IBIC's 0.10% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGRO vs. IBIC - Dividend Comparison
CGRO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.22%, less than IBIC's 4.62% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF | 3.22% | 2.48% | 2.47% | 0.21% |
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF | 4.62% | 4.43% | 4.65% | 0.83% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CGRO and IBIC have a correlation of -0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CGRO has higher volatility (6.15%) compared to IBIC (0.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGRO dropped -36.53% vs IBIC's -0.90%.
On 1-year performance, IBIC leads with 4.02% vs -12.21% for CGRO. On fees, IBIC is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBIC has been the lower-risk option at 0.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, IBIC has performed better with a 4.02% return vs -12.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBIC is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CGRO.
IBIC has the higher dividend yield at 4.62%, compared with 3.22% for CGRO.
CGRO is categorized as China Equities, while IBIC is Inflation-Protected Bonds. They also come from different issuers: CoreValues and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CGRO and 0.10% for IBIC.
IBIC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.57 vs -0.53), 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.
Find the right allocation for CGRO and IBIC
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