GSAGX vs. MCSMX

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

GSAGX (Goldman Sachs China Equity Fund) and MCSMX (Matthews China Small Companies Fund) are both China Equities funds. Over the past 10 years, GSAGX returned 5.65%/yr vs 13.62%/yr for MCSMX. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GSAGX charges 1.47%/yr vs 1.41%/yr for MCSMX.

Performance

GSAGX vs. MCSMX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs China Equity Fund (GSAGX) and Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GSAGX achieves a 3.67% return, which is significantly lower than MCSMX's 39.95% return. Over the past 10 years, GSAGX has underperformed MCSMX with an annualized return of 5.65%, while MCSMX has yielded a comparatively higher 13.62% annualized return.

GSAGX

• 1D: -0.82%
• 1M: -0.93%
• YTD: 3.67%
• 6M: 3.75%
• 1Y: 23.14%
• 3Y*: 11.84%
• 5Y*: -6.37%
• 10Y*: 5.65%

MCSMX

• 1D: -1.54%
• 1M: 9.28%
• YTD: 39.95%
• 6M: 41.63%
• 1Y: 71.62%
• 3Y*: 20.43%
• 5Y*: 0.81%
• 10Y*: 13.62%

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

GSAGX vs. MCSMX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GSAGX Goldman Sachs China Equity Fund	3.67%	32.36%	13.00%	-18.78%	-30.71%	-14.26%	48.21%	26.22%	-18.45%	51.62%
MCSMX Matthews China Small Companies Fund	39.95%	28.85%	2.82%	-17.50%	-31.25%	6.71%	82.73%	35.41%	-17.65%	53.71%

Correlation

The correlation between GSAGX and MCSMX is 0.68, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.68
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.79
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.82
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 3, 2011	0.80

The correlation between GSAGX and MCSMX shifts across timeframes, from 0.68 (1 year) to 0.82 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

GSAGX vs. MCSMX — Risk / Return Rank

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

GSAGX

GSAGX Risk / Return Rank: 21
GSAGX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
GSAGX Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
GSAGX Omega Ratio Rank: 20
GSAGX Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
GSAGX Martin Ratio Rank: 18

MCSMX

MCSMX Risk / Return Rank: 91
MCSMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
MCSMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
MCSMX Omega Ratio Rank: 85
MCSMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
MCSMX Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

GSAGX vs. MCSMX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs China Equity Fund (GSAGX) 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.

	GSAGX	MCSMX	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.36	3.41	-2.05
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.94	4.39	-2.45
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.58	-0.34
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.88	5.65	-3.77
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.12	16.96	-11.84
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GSAGX vs. MCSMX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GSAGX Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is lower than the MCSMX Sharpe Ratio of 3.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GSAGX and MCSMX, 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

	GSAGX	MCSMX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.36	3.41	-2.05
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.25	0.03	-0.29
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.25	0.61	-0.36
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.15	0.41	-0.26

Drawdowns

GSAGX vs. MCSMX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GSAGX drawdown since its inception was -70.73%, which is greater than MCSMX's maximum drawdown of -55.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GSAGX and MCSMX.

Drawdown Indicators

	GSAGX	MCSMX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-70.73%	-55.77%	-14.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.15%	-12.32%	+0.17%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.08%	-26.50%	+1.42%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-58.97%	-53.98%	-4.99%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-63.98%	-55.77%	-8.21%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-37.74%	-5.05%	-32.69%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.60%	-20.22%	-8.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.47%	4.11%	+0.36%

Volatility

GSAGX vs. MCSMX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs China Equity Fund (GSAGX) is 6.02%, while Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) has a volatility of 8.96%. This indicates that GSAGX 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.

Volatility by Period

	GSAGX	MCSMX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.02%	8.96%	-2.94%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.82%	17.97%	-5.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.85%	21.99%	-4.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.43%	24.44%	+0.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.65%	22.31%	+0.34%

GSAGX vs. MCSMX - Expense Ratio Comparison

GSAGX has a 1.47% expense ratio, which is higher than MCSMX's 1.41% expense ratio.

Dividends

GSAGX vs. MCSMX - Dividend Comparison

GSAGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.29%, less than MCSMX's 1.59% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GSAGX Goldman Sachs China Equity Fund	1.29%	1.34%	1.40%	0.89%	0.00%	6.78%	5.02%	0.57%	6.92%	1.35%	0.00%	0.00%
MCSMX Matthews China Small Companies Fund	1.59%	2.23%	1.35%	2.36%	1.78%	26.38%	16.98%	1.03%	2.25%	5.66%	4.79%	8.88%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GSAGX and MCSMX in my portfolio?

GSAGX and MCSMX have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GSAGX or MCSMX?

MCSMX has higher volatility (8.96%) compared to GSAGX (6.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GSAGX dropped -70.73% vs MCSMX's -55.77%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCSMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.41 vs 1.36), 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.