HCM vs. ^GSPC
HCM (HUTCHMED (China) Limited) is a stock, while ^GSPC (S&P 500 Index) is an index. Over the past 10 years, HCM returned -1.89%/yr vs 13.27%/yr for ^GSPC. At a 0.27 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
HCM vs. ^GSPC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, HCM achieves a -16.43% return, which is significantly lower than ^GSPC's 9.79% return. Over the past 10 years, HCM has underperformed ^GSPC with an annualized return of -1.89%, while ^GSPC has yielded a comparatively higher 13.27% annualized return.
HCM
- 1D
- 0.63%
- 1M
- 1.64%
- 6M
- -25.39%
- YTD
- -16.43%
- 1Y
- -30.55%
- 3Y*
- -4.89%
- 5Y*
- -21.72%
- 10Y*
- -1.89%
^GSPC
- 1D
- -0.79%
- 1M
- 1.13%
- 6M
- 7.71%
- YTD
- 9.79%
- 1Y
- 20.06%
- 3Y*
- 18.60%
- 5Y*
- 11.43%
- 10Y*
- 13.27%
HCM vs. ^GSPC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HCM HUTCHMED (China) Limited | -16.43% | -7.49% | -20.43% | 22.53% | -57.87% | 9.56% | 27.72% | 8.58% | -41.43% | 190.49% |
^GSPC S&P 500 Index | 9.79% | 16.39% | 23.31% | 24.23% | -19.44% | 26.89% | 16.26% | 28.88% | -6.24% | 19.42% |
Correlation
The correlation between HCM and ^GSPC is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.20 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.29 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.27 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 17, 2016 | 0.27 |
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
HCM vs. ^GSPC — Risk / Return Rank
HCM
^GSPC
HCM vs. ^GSPC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HUTCHMED (China) Limited (HCM) and S&P 500 Index (^GSPC). 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.
| HCM | ^GSPC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.43 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.35 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.87 | 1.29 | -0.42 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.64 | 2.21 | -2.85 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.15 | 9.61 | -10.76 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
HCM vs. ^GSPC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum HCM drawdown since its inception was -82.18%, which is greater than ^GSPC's maximum drawdown of -56.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HCM and ^GSPC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| HCM | ^GSPC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -82.18% | -56.78% | -25.40% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -48.00% | -9.10% | -38.90% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -54.13% | -18.90% | -35.23% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -82.18% | -25.43% | -56.75% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -82.18% | -33.92% | -48.26% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -74.06% | -1.24% | -72.82% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -40.48% | -10.71% | -29.77% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 26.49% | 2.09% | +24.40% |
Volatility
HCM vs. ^GSPC - Volatility Comparison
HUTCHMED (China) Limited (HCM) has a higher volatility of 12.28% compared to S&P 500 Index (^GSPC) at 3.96%. This indicates that HCM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ^GSPC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| HCM | ^GSPC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 12.28% | 3.96% | +8.32% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 23.64% | 9.99% | +13.65% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 37.09% | 12.57% | +24.52% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 64.91% | 17.01% | +47.90% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 59.37% | 18.05% | +41.32% |
Frequently Asked Questions
HCM and ^GSPC have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
HCM has higher volatility (12.28%) compared to ^GSPC (3.96%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HCM dropped -82.18% vs ^GSPC's -56.78%.
^GSPC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.61 vs -0.83), 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 HCM and ^GSPC
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