EVCGX vs. MCSMX
Compare and contrast key facts about Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund (EVCGX) and Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX).
EVCGX is managed by Eaton Vance. It was launched on Oct 27, 1992. MCSMX is managed by Matthews. It was launched on May 30, 2011.
Performance
EVCGX vs. MCSMX - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
EVCGX vs. MCSMX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EVCGX Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund | -9.64% | 26.06% | 9.30% | -17.33% | -22.53% | -9.61% | 25.22% | 23.32% | -9.90% | 49.26% |
MCSMX Matthews China Small Companies Fund | 10.66% | 28.85% | 2.82% | -17.50% | -31.25% | 6.71% | 82.73% | 35.41% | -17.65% | 53.71% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EVCGX achieves a -9.64% return, which is significantly lower than MCSMX's 10.66% return. Over the past 10 years, EVCGX has underperformed MCSMX with an annualized return of 4.66%, while MCSMX has yielded a comparatively higher 11.23% annualized return.
EVCGX
- 1D
- -0.06%
- 1M
- -7.78%
- YTD
- -9.64%
- 6M
- -16.17%
- 1Y
- -0.54%
- 3Y*
- 0.48%
- 5Y*
- -7.00%
- 10Y*
- 4.66%
MCSMX
- 1D
- -0.63%
- 1M
- -10.72%
- YTD
- 10.66%
- 6M
- 6.47%
- 1Y
- 31.98%
- 3Y*
- 6.45%
- 5Y*
- -2.56%
- 10Y*
- 11.23%
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. MCSMX - Expense Ratio Comparison
EVCGX has a 1.53% expense ratio, which is higher than MCSMX's 1.41% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
EVCGX vs. MCSMX — Risk / Return Rank
EVCGX
MCSMX
EVCGX vs. MCSMX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund (EVCGX) and Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX). 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 | MCSMX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.03 | 1.48 | -1.52 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 0.10 | 1.94 | -1.84 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.01 | 1.29 | -0.28 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.14 | 1.32 | -1.46 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.39 | 4.46 | -4.85 |
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 | MCSMX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.03 | 1.48 | -1.52 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.27 | -0.11 | -0.17 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.21 | 0.51 | -0.30 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.23 | 0.34 | -0.11 |
Correlation
The correlation between EVCGX and MCSMX is 0.79, 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. MCSMX - Dividend Comparison
EVCGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%, less than MCSMX's 2.01% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EVCGX Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund | 1.75% | 1.58% | 2.15% | 8.47% | 6.09% | 5.43% | 9.85% | 3.19% | 9.89% | 11.34% | 0.94% | 6.33% |
MCSMX Matthews China Small Companies Fund | 2.01% | 2.23% | 1.35% | 2.36% | 1.78% | 26.38% | 16.98% | 1.03% | 2.25% | 5.66% | 4.79% | 8.88% |
Drawdowns
EVCGX vs. MCSMX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EVCGX drawdown since its inception was -68.37%, which is greater than MCSMX's maximum drawdown of -55.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EVCGX and MCSMX.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| EVCGX | MCSMX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -68.37% | -55.77% | -12.60% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -17.35% | -15.69% | -1.66% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -54.46% | -53.98% | -0.48% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -56.84% | -55.77% | -1.07% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -36.76% | -24.92% | -11.84% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -28.03% | -20.31% | -7.72% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.18% | 5.63% | +0.55% |
Volatility
EVCGX vs. MCSMX - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund (EVCGX) is 6.18%, while Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) has a volatility of 8.13%. This indicates that EVCGX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MCSMX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| EVCGX | MCSMX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.18% | 8.13% | -1.95% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.52% | 14.70% | -1.18% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.52% | 22.12% | -1.60% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 25.56% | 24.01% | +1.55% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.06% | 21.99% | +0.07% |