EVCGX vs. FHKTX
Compare and contrast key facts about Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund (EVCGX) and Fidelity Advisor China Region Fund Class M (FHKTX).
EVCGX is managed by Eaton Vance. It was launched on Oct 27, 1992. FHKTX is managed by Fidelity. It was launched on May 9, 2008.
Performance
EVCGX vs. FHKTX - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
EVCGX vs. FHKTX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EVCGX Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund | -8.12% | 26.06% | 9.30% | -17.33% | -22.53% | -9.61% | 25.22% | 23.32% | -9.90% | 49.26% |
FHKTX Fidelity Advisor China Region Fund Class M | 8.22% | 41.85% | 22.53% | -0.84% | -24.32% | -14.20% | 46.95% | 34.26% | -17.96% | 50.94% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EVCGX achieves a -8.12% return, which is significantly lower than FHKTX's 8.22% return. Over the past 10 years, EVCGX has underperformed FHKTX with an annualized return of 4.83%, while FHKTX has yielded a comparatively higher 11.79% annualized return.
EVCGX
- 1D
- 1.67%
- 1M
- -5.91%
- YTD
- -8.12%
- 6M
- -15.37%
- 1Y
- 0.94%
- 3Y*
- 1.03%
- 5Y*
- -7.03%
- 10Y*
- 4.83%
FHKTX
- 1D
- 2.71%
- 1M
- -6.17%
- YTD
- 8.22%
- 6M
- 7.57%
- 1Y
- 45.66%
- 3Y*
- 20.30%
- 5Y*
- 2.38%
- 10Y*
- 11.79%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
EVCGX vs. FHKTX - Expense Ratio Comparison
EVCGX has a 1.53% expense ratio, which is higher than FHKTX's 1.50% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
EVCGX vs. FHKTX — Risk / Return Rank
EVCGX
FHKTX
EVCGX vs. FHKTX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund (EVCGX) and Fidelity Advisor China Region Fund Class M (FHKTX). 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.
| EVCGX | FHKTX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.06 | 2.03 | -1.97 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 0.22 | 2.59 | -2.37 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.03 | 1.37 | -0.35 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.06 | 2.88 | -2.82 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.16 | 11.05 | -10.89 |
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 graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| EVCGX | FHKTX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.06 | 2.03 | -1.97 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.28 | 0.10 | -0.38 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.22 | 0.54 | -0.32 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.24 | 0.31 | -0.07 |
Correlation
The correlation between EVCGX and FHKTX is 0.90, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
EVCGX vs. FHKTX - Dividend Comparison
EVCGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.73%, more than FHKTX's 1.17% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EVCGX Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund | 1.73% | 1.58% | 2.15% | 8.47% | 6.09% | 5.43% | 9.85% | 3.19% | 9.89% | 11.34% | 0.94% | 6.33% |
FHKTX Fidelity Advisor China Region Fund Class M | 1.17% | 1.27% | 1.10% | 1.27% | 0.29% | 10.88% | 4.51% | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.69% | 14.81% |
Drawdowns
EVCGX vs. FHKTX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EVCGX drawdown since its inception was -68.37%, which is greater than FHKTX's maximum drawdown of -58.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EVCGX and FHKTX.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| EVCGX | FHKTX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -68.37% | -58.83% | -9.54% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -17.35% | -15.92% | -1.43% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -54.46% | -54.25% | -0.21% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -56.84% | -58.83% | +1.99% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -35.70% | -8.42% | -27.28% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -28.03% | -19.28% | -8.75% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.26% | 4.17% | +2.09% |
Volatility
EVCGX vs. FHKTX - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund (EVCGX) is 6.51%, while Fidelity Advisor China Region Fund Class M (FHKTX) has a volatility of 9.78%. This indicates that EVCGX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FHKTX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| EVCGX | FHKTX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.51% | 9.78% | -3.27% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.50% | 16.53% | -3.03% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.55% | 23.26% | -2.71% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 25.57% | 23.99% | +1.58% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.06% | 22.11% | -0.05% |