CGRO vs. ISVBF

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) and iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF).

CGRO and ISVBF are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CGRO is an actively managed fund by CoreValues Alpha. It was launched on Oct 2, 2023. ISVBF is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI China A Inclusion Index. It was launched on Apr 8, 2015.

Performance

CGRO vs. ISVBF - 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 UCITS ETF (ISVBF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

CGRO vs. ISVBF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	-11.71%	20.23%	14.75%	2.03%
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF	-6.48%	30.64%	18.96%	-3.53%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGRO achieves a -11.71% return, which is significantly lower than ISVBF's -6.48% return.

CGRO

• 1D: 0.58%
• 1M: -3.12%
• YTD: -11.71%
• 6M: -23.59%
• 1Y: -8.69%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ISVBF

• 1D: 0.60%
• 1M: -4.98%
• YTD: -6.48%
• 6M: -13.49%
• 1Y: 6.38%
• 3Y*: 8.03%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CGRO vs. ISVBF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGRO has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than ISVBF's 0.40% expense ratio.

CGRO

CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF

ISVBF

iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF

Return for Risk

CGRO vs. ISVBF — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGRO

CGRO Risk / Return Rank: 6
CGRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
CGRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
CGRO Omega Ratio Rank: 6
CGRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
CGRO Martin Ratio Rank: 5

ISVBF

ISVBF Risk / Return Rank: 17
ISVBF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
ISVBF Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
ISVBF Omega Ratio Rank: 18
ISVBF Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
ISVBF Martin Ratio Rank: 17

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. ISVBF - 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 UCITS ETF (ISVBF). 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.

	CGRO	ISVBF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-0.33	0.20	-0.53
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	-0.28	0.49	-0.77
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.96	1.07	-0.11
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.38	0.33	-0.71
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-0.90	0.98	-1.89
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. ISVBF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGRO Sharpe Ratio is -0.33, which is lower than the ISVBF Sharpe Ratio of 0.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGRO and ISVBF, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CGRO	ISVBF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.33	0.20	-0.53
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.32	-0.16	+0.47

Correlation

The correlation between CGRO and ISVBF is 0.52, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

CGRO vs. ISVBF - Dividend Comparison

CGRO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.17%, while ISVBF has not paid dividends to shareholders.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	3.17%	2.48%	2.47%	0.21%
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Drawdowns

CGRO vs. ISVBF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGRO drawdown since its inception was -27.01%, smaller than the maximum ISVBF drawdown of -53.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGRO and ISVBF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGRO	ISVBF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.01%	-53.78%	+26.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-27.01%	-19.18%	-7.83%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-24.54%	-24.20%	-0.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.30%	-33.12%	+23.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.31%	6.49%	+4.82%

Volatility

CGRO vs. ISVBF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) is 7.39%, while iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) has a volatility of 17.49%. This indicates that CGRO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ISVBF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGRO	ISVBF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.39%	17.49%	-10.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.98%	24.96%	-8.98%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.79%	31.35%	-4.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.35%	30.03%	-0.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.35%	30.03%	-0.68%