CGRO vs. ISCMF
CGRO (CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF) and ISCMF (iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGRO is a China Equities fund actively managed by CoreValues, while ISCMF is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity Index. CGRO is actively managed, while ISCMF is passively managed. Over the past year, CGRO returned -12.21% vs 21.66% for ISCMF. Their -0.02 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. CGRO charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for ISCMF.
Performance
CGRO vs. ISCMF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGRO achieves a -12.97% return, which is significantly lower than ISCMF's 11.96% return.
CGRO
- 1D
- 0.75%
- 1M
- 12.95%
- 6M
- -10.76%
- YTD
- -12.97%
- 1Y
- -12.21%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 7.45%
ISCMF
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.00%
- 6M
- 1.00%
- YTD
- 11.96%
- 1Y
- 21.66%
- 3Y*
- 10.24%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 3.78%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $6.01K | $9.52K | $35.25K | |
| $0.00 | $7.90K | $54.64K |
CGRO vs. ISCMF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF | -12.97% | 20.23% | 14.75% | 1.84% |
ISCMF iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF | 11.96% | 19.65% | 3.13% | -5.76% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGRO and ISCMF is -0.08, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 17, 2023 | -0.02 |
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. ISCMF — Risk / Return Rank
CGRO
ISCMF
CGRO vs. ISCMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) and iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ISCMF). 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 | ISCMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.64 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.40 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.93 | 1.81 | -0.88 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.34 | 1.59 | -1.93 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.63 | 4.77 | -5.40 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CGRO vs. ISCMF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGRO drawdown since its inception was -36.53%, which is greater than ISCMF's maximum drawdown of -25.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGRO and ISCMF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGRO | ISCMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -36.53% | -25.42% | -11.11% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -36.53% | -13.68% | -22.85% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -13.68% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -25.62% | -13.68% | -11.94% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.47% | -13.31% | +1.84% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 19.35% | 4.69% | +14.66% |
Volatility
CGRO vs. ISCMF - Volatility Comparison
CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) has a higher volatility of 6.15% compared to iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ISCMF) at 0.00%. This indicates that CGRO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ISCMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CGRO | ISCMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.15% | 0.00% | +6.15% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 16.63% | 17.04% | -0.41% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.09% | 19.57% | +3.52% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 28.67% | 14.73% | +13.94% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 28.67% | 14.73% | +13.94% |
CGRO vs. ISCMF - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGRO has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than ISCMF's 0.19% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGRO vs. ISCMF - Dividend Comparison
CGRO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.22%, while ISCMF has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF | 3.22% | 2.48% | 2.47% | 0.21% |
ISCMF iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CGRO and ISCMF 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.
CGRO has higher volatility (6.15%) compared to ISCMF (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGRO dropped -36.53% vs ISCMF's -25.42%.
On 1-year performance, ISCMF leads with 21.66% vs -12.21% for CGRO. On fees, ISCMF is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, ISCMF has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, ISCMF has performed better with a 21.66% return vs -12.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ISCMF is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CGRO.
CGRO has the higher dividend yield at 3.22%, compared with 0.00% for ISCMF.
CGRO is categorized as China Equities, while ISCMF is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: CoreValues and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CGRO and 0.19% for ISCMF.
ISCMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.11 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 ISCMF
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