CGRO vs. MAGC
CGRO (CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF) and MAGC (Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF) are both China Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CGRO returned -12.15% vs -21.81% for MAGC. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGRO charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for MAGC.
Performance
CGRO vs. MAGC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGRO achieves a -15.64% return, which is significantly higher than MAGC's -18.51% return.
CGRO
- 1D
- -0.69%
- 1M
- -6.61%
- YTD
- -15.64%
- 6M
- -16.66%
- 1Y
- -12.15%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
MAGC
- 1D
- -0.32%
- 1M
- -4.78%
- YTD
- -18.51%
- 6M
- -20.29%
- 1Y
- -21.81%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CGRO vs. MAGC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF | -15.64% | 20.23% | -12.50% |
MAGC Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF | -18.51% | 16.35% | -14.54% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGRO and MAGC is 0.89, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.89 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 4, 2024 | 0.91 |
The correlation between CGRO and MAGC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.
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. MAGC — Risk / Return Rank
CGRO
MAGC
CGRO vs. MAGC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) and Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGC). 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 | MAGC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.27 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.47 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.93 | 0.88 | +0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.44 | -0.67 | +0.23 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.83 | -1.27 | +0.44 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CGRO | MAGC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.55 | -0.82 | +0.27 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.23 | -0.35 | +0.58 |
Drawdowns
CGRO vs. MAGC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGRO drawdown since its inception was -27.90%, smaller than the maximum MAGC drawdown of -32.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGRO and MAGC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGRO | MAGC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -27.90% | -32.86% | +4.96% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -27.90% | -32.86% | +4.96% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -27.90% | -31.52% | +3.62% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.25% | -15.20% | +4.95% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 14.67% | 17.21% | -2.54% |
Volatility
CGRO vs. MAGC - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) is 7.68%, while Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF (MAGC) has a volatility of 11.12%. This indicates that CGRO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MAGC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CGRO | MAGC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.68% | 11.12% | -3.44% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 15.54% | 19.73% | -4.19% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 22.47% | 26.78% | -4.31% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 28.97% | 34.38% | -5.41% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 28.97% | 34.38% | -5.41% |
CGRO vs. MAGC - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGRO has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than MAGC's 0.59% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGRO vs. MAGC - Dividend Comparison
CGRO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.32%, less than MAGC's 5.03% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF | 3.32% | 2.48% | 2.47% | 0.21% |
MAGC Roundhill China Magnificent Seven ETF | 5.03% | 4.10% | 1.02% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CGRO and MAGC have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MAGC has higher volatility (11.12%) compared to CGRO (7.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGRO dropped -27.90% vs MAGC's -32.86%.
On 1-year performance, CGRO leads with -12.15% vs -21.81% for MAGC. On fees, MAGC is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, CGRO has been the lower-risk option at 7.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, CGRO has performed better with a -12.15% return vs -21.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
MAGC is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CGRO.
MAGC has the higher dividend yield at 5.03%, compared with 3.32% for CGRO.
They also come from different issuers: CoreValues Alpha and Roundhill. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CGRO and 0.59% for MAGC.
CGRO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.55 vs -0.82), 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 MAGC
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