CGRO vs. ONLN
CGRO (CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF) and ONLN (ProShares Online Retail ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CGRO is a China Equities fund actively managed by CoreValues, while ONLN is a Consumer Discretionary Equities fund tracking the ProShares Online Retail Index. CGRO is actively managed, while ONLN is passively managed. Over the past year, CGRO returned -12.21% vs 15.59% for ONLN. Their 0.56 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CGRO charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for ONLN.
Performance
CGRO vs. ONLN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CGRO achieves a -12.97% return, which is significantly lower than ONLN's 4.38% return.
CGRO
- 1D
- 0.75%
- 1M
- 12.95%
- 6M
- -10.76%
- YTD
- -12.97%
- 1Y
- -12.21%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 7.45%
ONLN
- 1D
- 1.06%
- 1M
- 10.45%
- 6M
- 4.45%
- YTD
- 4.38%
- 1Y
- 15.59%
- 3Y*
- 20.60%
- 5Y*
- -3.20%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 5.83%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $6.01K | $9.52K | $35.25K | |
| $497.64K | $496.22K | $425.07K |
CGRO vs. ONLN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF | -12.97% | 20.23% | 14.75% | 1.84% |
ONLN ProShares Online Retail ETF | 4.38% | 33.03% | 24.85% | 15.99% |
Correlation
The correlation between CGRO and ONLN is 0.55, 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. | 0.55 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 17, 2023 | 0.56 |
The correlation between CGRO and ONLN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.
CGRO vs. ONLN - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CGRO
ONLN
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
-
Communication Services
-
Technology
Healthcare
-
Financial Services
-
Consumer Defensive
Real Estate
-
Basic Materials
-
-
Energy
-
-
Utilities
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
CGRO
ONLN
Industrials
CGRO
ONLN
-
Communication Services
CGRO
ONLN
-
Technology
CGRO
ONLN
Healthcare
CGRO
ONLN
-
Financial Services
CGRO
ONLN
-
Consumer Defensive
CGRO
ONLN
Real Estate
CGRO
ONLN
-
Basic Materials
CGRO
-
ONLN
-
Energy
CGRO
-
ONLN
-
Utilities
CGRO
-
ONLN
-
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. ONLN — Risk / Return Rank
CGRO
ONLN
CGRO vs. ONLN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) and ProShares Online Retail ETF (ONLN). 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 | ONLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.15 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.64 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.93 | 1.12 | -0.19 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.34 | 0.79 | -1.13 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.63 | 1.71 | -2.34 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CGRO vs. ONLN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CGRO drawdown since its inception was -36.53%, smaller than the maximum ONLN drawdown of -71.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGRO and ONLN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CGRO | ONLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -36.53% | -71.77% | +35.24% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -36.53% | -19.75% | -16.78% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -27.97% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -64.17% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -25.62% | -32.42% | +6.80% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.47% | -35.48% | +24.01% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 19.35% | 9.13% | +10.22% |
Volatility
CGRO vs. ONLN - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) is 6.15%, while ProShares Online Retail ETF (ONLN) has a volatility of 7.84%. This indicates that CGRO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ONLN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CGRO | ONLN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.15% | 7.84% | -1.69% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 16.63% | 19.41% | -2.78% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.09% | 25.18% | -2.09% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 28.67% | 33.04% | -4.37% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 28.67% | 32.01% | -3.34% |
CGRO vs. ONLN - Expense Ratio Comparison
CGRO has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than ONLN's 0.58% expense ratio.
Dividends
CGRO vs. ONLN - Dividend Comparison
CGRO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.22%, more than ONLN's 0.27% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF | 3.22% | 2.48% | 2.47% | 0.21% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
ONLN ProShares Online Retail ETF | 0.27% | 0.30% | 0.75% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 1.24% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CGRO and ONLN have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ONLN has higher volatility (7.84%) compared to CGRO (6.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGRO dropped -36.53% vs ONLN's -71.77%.
On 1-year performance, ONLN leads with 15.59% vs -12.21% for CGRO. On fees, ONLN is cheaper at 0.58% 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.
Over the 1-year period, ONLN has performed better with a 15.59% return vs -12.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ONLN is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CGRO.
CGRO has the higher dividend yield at 3.22%, compared with 0.27% for ONLN.
CGRO is categorized as China Equities, while ONLN is Consumer Discretionary Equities. They also come from different issuers: CoreValues and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for CGRO and 0.58% for ONLN.
ONLN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.62 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 ONLN
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