FCSS.L vs. BGCG.L
Compare and contrast key facts about Fidelity China Special Situations plc (FCSS.L) and Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust plc (BGCG.L).
Performance
FCSS.L vs. BGCG.L - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
FCSS.L vs. BGCG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FCSS.L Fidelity China Special Situations plc | -6.14% | 40.12% | 8.61% | -9.30% | -21.25% | -17.53% | 68.64% | 24.10% | -18.81% | 39.79% |
BGCG.L Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust plc | -2.11% | 39.75% | 13.68% | -26.27% | -25.62% | -28.59% | 56.04% | 20.35% | -11.07% | 20.34% |
Fundamentals
FCSS.L:
£1.39B
BGCG.L:
£176.65M
FCSS.L:
£2.47
BGCG.L:
£0.29
FCSS.L:
1.15
BGCG.L:
10.26
FCSS.L:
0.00
BGCG.L:
0.08
FCSS.L:
1.86
BGCG.L:
8.18
FCSS.L:
0.80
BGCG.L:
1.03
FCSS.L:
£747.29M
BGCG.L:
£21.58M
FCSS.L:
£142.40M
BGCG.L:
£20.14M
FCSS.L:
£714.49M
BGCG.L:
£41.22M
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FCSS.L achieves a -6.14% return, which is significantly lower than BGCG.L's -2.11% return. Over the past 10 years, FCSS.L has outperformed BGCG.L with an annualized return of 9.76%, while BGCG.L has yielded a comparatively lower 4.37% annualized return.
FCSS.L
- 1D
- 1.07%
- 1M
- -9.00%
- YTD
- -6.14%
- 6M
- -13.59%
- 1Y
- 9.85%
- 3Y*
- 7.90%
- 5Y*
- -5.68%
- 10Y*
- 9.76%
BGCG.L
- 1D
- 2.38%
- 1M
- -1.63%
- YTD
- -2.11%
- 6M
- -5.35%
- 1Y
- 14.76%
- 3Y*
- 5.84%
- 5Y*
- -7.59%
- 10Y*
- 4.37%
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
FCSS.L vs. BGCG.L — Risk / Return Rank
FCSS.L
BGCG.L
FCSS.L vs. BGCG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity China Special Situations plc (FCSS.L) and Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust plc (BGCG.L). 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.
| FCSS.L | BGCG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 0.40 | 0.66 | -0.25 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 0.67 | 1.01 | -0.34 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.10 | 1.14 | -0.04 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.66 | 1.02 | -0.35 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.87 | 3.03 | -1.16 |
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
| FCSS.L | BGCG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.40 | 0.66 | -0.25 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.20 | -0.26 | +0.05 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.37 | 0.16 | +0.21 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.33 | 0.18 | +0.14 |
Correlation
The correlation between FCSS.L and BGCG.L is 0.49, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.
Dividends
FCSS.L vs. BGCG.L - Dividend Comparison
FCSS.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.18%, more than BGCG.L's 1.46% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FCSS.L Fidelity China Special Situations plc | 3.18% | 2.99% | 2.87% | 2.96% | 2.29% | 1.50% | 1.11% | 1.67% | 1.86% | 1.06% | 1.06% | 0.91% |
BGCG.L Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust plc | 1.46% | 1.43% | 0.89% | 0.85% | 1.69% | 1.93% | 1.35% | 2.04% | 1.96% | 1.43% | 1.66% | 2.01% |
Drawdowns
FCSS.L vs. BGCG.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FCSS.L drawdown since its inception was -62.98%, smaller than the maximum BGCG.L drawdown of -71.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCSS.L and BGCG.L.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| FCSS.L | BGCG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -62.98% | -71.43% | +8.45% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -18.94% | -16.79% | -2.15% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -57.76% | -64.14% | +6.38% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -62.98% | -71.43% | +8.45% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -35.54% | -49.76% | +14.22% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -24.84% | -25.65% | +0.81% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.94% | 4.73% | +1.21% |
Volatility
FCSS.L vs. BGCG.L - Volatility Comparison
Fidelity China Special Situations plc (FCSS.L) has a higher volatility of 7.35% compared to Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust plc (BGCG.L) at 6.90%. This indicates that FCSS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BGCG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| FCSS.L | BGCG.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.35% | 6.90% | +0.45% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 15.94% | 13.80% | +2.14% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.29% | 22.42% | +1.87% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 28.06% | 29.72% | -1.66% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.97% | 26.69% | -0.72% |
Financials
FCSS.L vs. BGCG.L - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Fidelity China Special Situations plc and Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust plc. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.
Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities
FCSS.L vs. BGCG.L - Profitability Comparison
FCSS.L - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Fidelity China Special Situations plc reported a gross profit of 0.00 and revenue of 415.05M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 0.0%.
BGCG.L - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust plc reported a gross profit of 22.70M and revenue of 22.70M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 100.0%.
FCSS.L - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Fidelity China Special Situations plc reported an operating income of 407.32M and revenue of 415.05M, resulting in an operating margin of 98.1%.
BGCG.L - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust plc reported an operating income of 21.80M and revenue of 22.70M, resulting in an operating margin of 96.1%.
FCSS.L - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Fidelity China Special Situations plc reported a net income of 397.63M and revenue of 415.05M, resulting in a net margin of 95.8%.
BGCG.L - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust plc reported a net income of 21.84M and revenue of 22.70M, resulting in a net margin of 96.2%.