GSAGX vs. LNGZX
GSAGX (Goldman Sachs China Equity Fund) and LNGZX (Columbia Greater China Fund) are both China Equities funds. Over the past 10 years, GSAGX returned 4.91%/yr vs 3.12%/yr for LNGZX. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GSAGX charges 1.47%/yr vs 1.25%/yr for LNGZX.
Performance
GSAGX vs. LNGZX - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GSAGX achieves a 0.86% return, which is significantly higher than LNGZX's -10.47% return. Over the past 10 years, GSAGX has outperformed LNGZX with an annualized return of 4.91%, while LNGZX has yielded a comparatively lower 3.12% annualized return.
GSAGX
- 1D
- 0.55%
- 1M
- -1.49%
- 6M
- -4.83%
- YTD
- 0.86%
- 1Y
- 13.90%
- 3Y*
- 9.86%
- 5Y*
- -6.31%
- 10Y*
- 4.91%
LNGZX
- 1D
- 1.75%
- 1M
- -1.74%
- 6M
- -15.17%
- YTD
- -10.47%
- 1Y
- -3.49%
- 3Y*
- 3.96%
- 5Y*
- -10.62%
- 10Y*
- 3.12%
GSAGX vs. LNGZX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GSAGX Goldman Sachs China Equity Fund | 0.86% | 32.36% | 13.00% | -18.78% | -30.71% | -14.26% | 48.21% | 26.22% | -18.45% | 51.62% |
LNGZX Columbia Greater China Fund | -10.47% | 27.49% | 12.29% | -18.70% | -28.42% | -25.21% | 46.04% | 32.95% | -20.01% | 59.90% |
Correlation
The correlation between GSAGX and LNGZX is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.91 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.94 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.95 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.93 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 2, 1998 | 0.87 |
The correlation between GSAGX and LNGZX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
GSAGX vs. LNGZX — Risk / Return Rank
GSAGX
LNGZX
GSAGX vs. LNGZX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs China Equity Fund (GSAGX) 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.
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.
| GSAGX | LNGZX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.88 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.18 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.13 | 0.99 | +0.14 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.13 | -0.16 | +1.29 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.67 | -0.34 | +3.02 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GSAGX vs. LNGZX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GSAGX drawdown since its inception was -70.73%, roughly equal to the maximum LNGZX drawdown of -73.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GSAGX and LNGZX.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GSAGX | LNGZX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -70.73% | -73.37% | +2.64% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.15% | -23.54% | +11.39% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -25.08% | -26.71% | +1.63% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -57.32% | -60.85% | +3.53% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -63.98% | -67.94% | +3.96% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -39.43% | -53.30% | +13.87% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -28.63% | -26.63% | -2.00% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.11% | 10.87% | -5.76% |
Volatility
GSAGX vs. LNGZX - Volatility Comparison
Goldman Sachs China Equity Fund (GSAGX) has a higher volatility of 7.21% compared to Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX) at 6.85%. This indicates that GSAGX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LNGZX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GSAGX | LNGZX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.21% | 6.85% | +0.36% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.65% | 15.88% | -1.23% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.35% | 21.64% | -2.29% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 25.55% | 30.00% | -4.45% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.74% | 26.59% | -3.85% |
GSAGX vs. LNGZX - Expense Ratio Comparison
GSAGX has a 1.47% expense ratio, which is higher than LNGZX's 1.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
GSAGX vs. LNGZX - Dividend Comparison
GSAGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.33%, less than LNGZX's 2.10% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GSAGX Goldman Sachs China Equity Fund | 1.33% | 1.34% | 1.40% | 0.89% | 0.00% | 6.78% | 5.02% | 0.57% | 6.92% | 1.35% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
LNGZX Columbia Greater China Fund | 2.10% | 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
With a correlation of 0.91, GSAGX 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.
GSAGX has higher volatility (7.21%) compared to LNGZX (6.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GSAGX dropped -70.73% vs LNGZX's -73.37%.
GSAGX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.71 vs -0.17), 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.
Find the right allocation for GSAGX and LNGZX
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer