CGRO vs. MCHS

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CGRO (CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF) and MCHS (Matthews China Discovery Active ETF) are both China Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CGRO returned -12.15% vs 73.11% for MCHS. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGRO charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for MCHS.

Performance

CGRO vs. MCHS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) and Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGRO achieves a -15.64% return, which is significantly lower than MCHS's 45.47% return.

CGRO

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

MCHS

• 1D: 0.95%
• 1M: 9.15%
• YTD: 45.47%
• 6M: 46.87%
• 1Y: 73.11%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CGRO vs. MCHS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	-15.64%	20.23%	19.00%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	45.47%	31.19%	6.53%

Correlation

The correlation between CGRO and MCHS is 0.57, 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	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 12, 2024	0.71

The correlation between CGRO and MCHS shifts across timeframes, from 0.57 (1 year) to 0.71 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CGRO vs. MCHS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGRO	MCHS
Consumer Cyclical	43.9%	12.5%
Industrials	15.6%	32.9%
Technology	14.8%	31.5%
Communication Services	13.3%	1.2%
Healthcare	5.7%	4.4%
Financial Services	3.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	0.8%
Real Estate	1.1%	3.7%
Basic Materials	-	9.0%
Energy	-	3.9%
Utilities	-	2.1%

Return for Risk

CGRO vs. MCHS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGRO

CGRO Risk / Return Rank: 5
CGRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
CGRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
CGRO Omega Ratio Rank: 5
CGRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
CGRO Martin Ratio Rank: 5

MCHS

MCHS Risk / Return Rank: 90
MCHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
MCHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
MCHS Omega Ratio Rank: 88
MCHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
MCHS Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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. MCHS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) and Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS). 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	MCHS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.55	3.24	-3.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.66	4.05	-4.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.93	1.55	-0.62
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.44	6.05	-6.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.83	18.25	-19.08
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. MCHS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGRO Sharpe Ratio is -0.55, which is lower than the MCHS Sharpe Ratio of 3.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGRO and MCHS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CGRO	MCHS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.55	3.24	-3.79
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.23	1.23	-1.00

Drawdowns

CGRO vs. MCHS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGRO drawdown since its inception was -27.90%, which is greater than MCHS's maximum drawdown of -23.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGRO and MCHS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGRO	MCHS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.90%	-23.75%	-4.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-27.90%	-12.15%	-15.75%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-27.90%	-2.35%	-25.55%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.25%	-7.60%	-2.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	14.67%	4.02%	+10.65%

Volatility

CGRO vs. MCHS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) is 7.68%, while Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) has a volatility of 10.81%. This indicates that CGRO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MCHS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGRO	MCHS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.68%	10.81%	-3.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.54%	18.21%	-2.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.47%	22.75%	-0.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.97%	28.22%	+0.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.97%	28.22%	+0.75%

CGRO vs. MCHS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGRO has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than MCHS's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGRO vs. MCHS - Dividend Comparison

CGRO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.32%, more than MCHS's 2.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	3.32%	2.48%	2.47%	0.21%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	2.45%	3.56%	5.48%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGRO and MCHS in my portfolio?

CGRO and MCHS have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGRO or MCHS?

MCHS has higher volatility (10.81%) compared to CGRO (7.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGRO dropped -27.90% vs MCHS's -23.75%.

Which ETF is better, CGRO or MCHS?

On 1-year performance, MCHS leads with 73.11% vs -12.15% for CGRO. On fees, CGRO is cheaper at 0.75% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, CGRO or MCHS?

Over the 1-year period, MCHS has performed better with a 73.11% return vs -12.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGRO or MCHS?

CGRO is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for MCHS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CGRO or MCHS?

CGRO has the higher dividend yield at 3.32%, compared with 2.45% for MCHS.

What is the main difference between CGRO and MCHS?

They also come from different issuers: CoreValues Alpha and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CGRO and 0.89% for MCHS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.24 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.