CGRO vs. NBCE

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

CGRO (CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF) and NBCE (Neuberger Berman China Equity ETF) are both China Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CGRO returned -12.21% vs 42.60% for NBCE. Their 0.68 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CGRO charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.74%/yr for NBCE.

Performance

CGRO vs. NBCE - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGRO achieves a -12.97% return, which is significantly lower than NBCE's 16.81% return.

CGRO

• 1D: 0.75%
• 1M: 12.95%
• 6M: -10.76%
• YTD: -12.97%
• 1Y: -12.21%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 7.45%

NBCE

• 1D: 2.18%
• 1M: -8.20%
• 6M: 10.75%
• YTD: 16.81%
• 1Y: 42.60%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 19.36%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	$6.01K	$9.52K	$35.25K
NBCE Neuberger Berman China Equity ETF	$48.33K	$57.98K	$40.99K

CGRO vs. NBCE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	-12.97%	20.23%	14.75%	1.84%
NBCE Neuberger Berman China Equity ETF	16.81%	39.08%	3.35%	-2.22%

Correlation

The correlation between CGRO and NBCE is 0.53, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 17, 2023	0.68

The correlation between CGRO and NBCE shifts across timeframes, from 0.53 (1 year) to 0.68 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CGRO vs. NBCE - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGRO	NBCE
Consumer Cyclical	42.4%	4.3%
Industrials	16.4%	14.7%
Communication Services	15.0%	0.8%
Technology	12.8%	41.1%
Healthcare	7.4%	3.4%
Financial Services	2.9%	14.3%
Consumer Defensive	2.0%	4.3%
Real Estate	1.1%	1.2%
Basic Materials	-	12.1%
Energy	-	2.4%
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

CGRO vs. NBCE — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

CGRO

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

NBCE

NBCE Risk / Return Rank: 65
NBCE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
NBCE Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
NBCE Omega Ratio Rank: 68
NBCE Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
NBCE Martin Ratio Rank: 64

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CGRO vs. NBCE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) and Neuberger Berman China Equity ETF (NBCE). 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	NBCE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.53	1.81	-2.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.63	2.42	-3.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.93	1.32	-0.39
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.34	2.43	-2.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.63	8.77	-9.40

CGRO vs. NBCE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGRO Sharpe Ratio is -0.53, which is lower than the NBCE Sharpe Ratio of 1.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGRO and NBCE, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

CGRO vs. NBCE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGRO drawdown since its inception was -36.53%, which is greater than NBCE's maximum drawdown of -28.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGRO and NBCE.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGRO	NBCE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.53%	-28.42%	-8.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-36.53%	-17.60%	-18.93%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-25.62%	-14.32%	-11.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.47%	-9.05%	-2.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	19.35%	4.87%	+14.48%

Volatility

CGRO vs. NBCE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) is 6.15%, while Neuberger Berman China Equity ETF (NBCE) has a volatility of 10.76%. This indicates that CGRO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NBCE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGRO	NBCE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.15%	10.76%	-4.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.63%	19.58%	-2.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.09%	23.66%	-0.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.67%	25.03%	+3.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.67%	25.03%	+3.64%

CGRO vs. NBCE - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGRO has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than NBCE's 0.74% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGRO vs. NBCE - Dividend Comparison

CGRO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.22%, more than NBCE's 1.13% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	3.22%	2.48%	2.47%	0.21%
NBCE Neuberger Berman China Equity ETF	1.13%	1.32%	1.20%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGRO and NBCE in my portfolio?

CGRO and NBCE have a correlation of 0.53, 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 NBCE?

NBCE has higher volatility (10.76%) compared to CGRO (6.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGRO dropped -36.53% vs NBCE's -28.42%.

Which ETF is better, CGRO or NBCE?

On 1-year performance, NBCE leads with 42.60% vs -12.21% for CGRO. On fees, NBCE is cheaper at 0.74% per year. On volatility, CGRO has been the lower-risk option at 6.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGRO or NBCE?

Over the 1-year period, NBCE has performed better with a 42.60% return vs -12.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGRO or NBCE?

NBCE is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CGRO.

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

CGRO has the higher dividend yield at 3.22%, compared with 1.13% for NBCE.

What is the main difference between CGRO and NBCE?

They also come from different issuers: CoreValues and Neuberger Berman. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CGRO and 0.74% for NBCE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NBCE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.81 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.