EVCGX vs. LNGZX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EVCGX (Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund) and LNGZX (Columbia Greater China Fund) are both China Equities funds. Over the past 10 years, EVCGX returned 5.37%/yr vs 4.37%/yr for LNGZX. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EVCGX charges 1.53%/yr vs 1.25%/yr for LNGZX.

Performance

EVCGX vs. LNGZX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund (EVCGX) and Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EVCGX achieves a -3.53% return, which is significantly lower than LNGZX's -2.56% return. Over the past 10 years, EVCGX has outperformed LNGZX with an annualized return of 5.37%, while LNGZX has yielded a comparatively lower 4.37% annualized return.

EVCGX

• 1D: 3.18%
• 1M: -0.29%
• YTD: -3.53%
• 6M: -5.16%
• 1Y: 6.44%
• 3Y*: 6.71%
• 5Y*: -6.28%
• 10Y*: 5.37%

LNGZX

• 1D: 2.46%
• 1M: -1.51%
• YTD: -2.56%
• 6M: -3.67%
• 1Y: 10.24%
• 3Y*: 8.28%
• 5Y*: -10.03%
• 10Y*: 4.37%

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

EVCGX vs. LNGZX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EVCGX Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund	-3.53%	26.06%	9.30%	-17.33%	-22.53%	-9.61%	25.22%	23.32%	-9.90%	49.26%
LNGZX Columbia Greater China Fund	-2.56%	27.49%	12.29%	-18.70%	-28.42%	-25.21%	46.04%	32.95%	-20.01%	59.90%

Correlation

The correlation between EVCGX and LNGZX is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.97
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 5, 1998	0.91

The correlation between EVCGX and LNGZX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EVCGX vs. LNGZX — Risk / Return Rank

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

EVCGX

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

LNGZX

LNGZX Risk / Return Rank: 7
LNGZX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
LNGZX Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
LNGZX Omega Ratio Rank: 7
LNGZX Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
LNGZX Martin Ratio Rank: 6

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.

EVCGX vs. LNGZX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund (EVCGX) and Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX). 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	LNGZX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.42	0.55	-0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.73	0.91	-0.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.11	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.44	0.61	-0.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.99	1.34	-0.34
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EVCGX vs. LNGZX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EVCGX Sharpe Ratio is 0.42, which is comparable to the LNGZX Sharpe Ratio of 0.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EVCGX and LNGZX, 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

	EVCGX	LNGZX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.42	0.55	-0.13
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.25	-0.34	+0.09
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.24	0.17	+0.08
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.24	0.28	-0.04

Drawdowns

EVCGX vs. LNGZX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EVCGX drawdown since its inception was -68.37%, smaller than the maximum LNGZX drawdown of -73.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EVCGX and LNGZX.

Drawdown Indicators

	EVCGX	LNGZX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-68.37%	-73.37%	+5.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.35%	-18.49%	+1.14%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.32%	-26.71%	-0.61%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-54.06%	-63.73%	+9.67%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-56.84%	-67.94%	+11.10%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-32.49%	-49.18%	+16.69%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.06%	-26.53%	-1.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.75%	8.49%	-0.74%

Volatility

EVCGX vs. LNGZX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund (EVCGX) is 6.64%, while Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX) has a volatility of 7.00%. This indicates that EVCGX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LNGZX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EVCGX	LNGZX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.64%	7.00%	-0.36%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.47%	15.03%	-1.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.45%	20.62%	-2.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.70%	29.96%	-4.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.15%	26.54%	-4.39%

EVCGX vs. LNGZX - Expense Ratio Comparison

EVCGX has a 1.53% expense ratio, which is higher than LNGZX's 1.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

EVCGX vs. LNGZX - Dividend Comparison

EVCGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.64%, less than LNGZX's 1.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EVCGX Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund	1.64%	1.58%	2.15%	8.47%	6.09%	5.43%	9.85%	3.19%	9.89%	11.34%	0.94%	6.33%
LNGZX Columbia Greater China Fund	1.93%	1.88%	1.21%	0.67%	0.00%	0.00%	4.29%	1.40%	5.85%	1.20%	0.00%	4.54%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EVCGX and LNGZX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, EVCGX and LNGZX move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, EVCGX or LNGZX?

LNGZX has higher volatility (7.00%) compared to EVCGX (6.64%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EVCGX dropped -68.37% vs LNGZX's -73.37%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LNGZX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.55 vs 0.42), 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.