CGRO vs. UGA

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

CGRO (CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF) and UGA (United States Gasoline Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - CGRO is a China Equities fund actively managed by CoreValues Alpha, while UGA is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Unleaded Gasoline. CGRO is actively managed, while UGA is passively managed. Over the past year, CGRO returned -20.81% vs 62.68% for UGA. At a 0.05 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.75% expense ratio.

Performance

CGRO vs. UGA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) and United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGRO achieves a -23.93% return, which is significantly lower than UGA's 59.54% return.

CGRO

• 1D: -0.63%
• 1M: -11.31%
• YTD: -23.93%
• 6M: -24.48%
• 1Y: -20.81%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

UGA

• 1D: -2.77%
• 1M: -14.54%
• YTD: 59.54%
• 6M: 55.91%
• 1Y: 62.68%
• 3Y*: 17.85%
• 5Y*: 22.22%
• 10Y*: 13.99%

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

CGRO vs. UGA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	-23.93%	20.23%	14.75%	1.84%
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP	59.54%	-2.00%	3.77%	-5.79%

Correlation

The correlation between CGRO and UGA is -0.08, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 17, 2023	0.05

The correlation between CGRO and UGA shifts across timeframes, from -0.08 (1 year) to 0.05 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

CGRO vs. UGA — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGRO

CGRO Risk / Return Rank: 3
CGRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
CGRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
CGRO Omega Ratio Rank: 3
CGRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
CGRO Martin Ratio Rank: 3

UGA

UGA Risk / Return Rank: 60
UGA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
UGA Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
UGA Omega Ratio Rank: 55
UGA Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
UGA Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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. UGA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) and United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). 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	UGA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.94	1.83	-2.77
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.28	2.35	-3.63
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.86	1.31	-0.45
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.60	3.10	-3.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.28	9.66	-10.94

CGRO vs. UGA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGRO Sharpe Ratio is -0.94, which is lower than the UGA Sharpe Ratio of 1.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGRO and UGA, 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. UGA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGRO drawdown since its inception was -34.99%, smaller than the maximum UGA drawdown of -86.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGRO and UGA.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGRO	UGA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.99%	-86.59%	+51.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-34.99%	-20.32%	-14.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.68%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-38.11%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-75.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-34.99%	-20.32%	-14.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.65%	-36.69%	+26.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.33%	6.51%	+9.82%

Volatility

CGRO vs. UGA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) is 6.31%, while United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA) has a volatility of 9.45%. This indicates that CGRO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UGA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CGRO	UGA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.31%	9.45%	-3.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.97%	30.74%	-14.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.41%	34.84%	-12.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.84%	34.47%	-5.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.84%	37.22%	-8.38%

CGRO vs. UGA - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both CGRO and UGA have an expense ratio of 0.75%.

Dividends

CGRO vs. UGA - Dividend Comparison

CGRO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.68%, while UGA has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	3.68%	2.48%	2.47%	0.21%
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGRO and UGA in my portfolio?

CGRO and UGA have a correlation of -0.08, 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 UGA?

UGA has higher volatility (9.45%) compared to CGRO (6.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGRO dropped -34.99% vs UGA's -86.59%.

Which ETF is better, CGRO or UGA?

On 1-year performance, UGA leads with 62.68% vs -20.81% for CGRO. Both ETFs have the same 0.75% expense ratio. On volatility, CGRO has been the lower-risk option at 6.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGRO or UGA?

Over the 1-year period, UGA has performed better with a 62.68% return vs -20.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGRO or UGA?

CGRO and UGA have the same expense ratio: 0.75% per year.

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

CGRO has the higher dividend yield at 3.68%, compared with 0.00% for UGA.

What is the main difference between CGRO and UGA?

CGRO is categorized as China Equities, while UGA is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: CoreValues Alpha and Concierge Technologies.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UGA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.82 vs -0.94), 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.