LNGZX vs. BGCBX

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

LNGZX (Columbia Greater China Fund) and BGCBX (Baillie Gifford China Equities Fund) are both China Equities funds. Over the past 5 years, LNGZX returned -8.49%/yr vs -5.09%/yr for BGCBX. Their correlation of 0.94 means they have usually moved in the same direction. LNGZX charges 1.25%/yr vs 0.96%/yr for BGCBX.

Performance

LNGZX vs. BGCBX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX) and Baillie Gifford China Equities Fund (BGCBX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LNGZX achieves a -10.99% return, which is significantly lower than BGCBX's -2.61% return.

LNGZX

• 1D: 1.31%
• 1M: 3.76%
• 6M: -14.42%
• YTD: -10.99%
• 1Y: -2.31%
• 3Y*: 1.74%
• 5Y*: -8.49%
• 10Y*: 2.95%
• ALL TIME*: 7.28%

BGCBX

• 1D: 1.05%
• 1M: 3.38%
• 6M: -5.88%
• YTD: -2.61%
• 1Y: 12.07%
• 3Y*: 6.77%
• 5Y*: -5.09%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -6.62%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BGCBX Baillie Gifford China Equities Fund	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
LNGZX Columbia Greater China Fund	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

LNGZX vs. BGCBX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
LNGZX Columbia Greater China Fund	-10.99%	27.49%	12.29%	-18.70%	-28.42%	-24.06%
BGCBX Baillie Gifford China Equities Fund	-2.61%	36.51%	9.74%	-18.00%	-28.56%	-17.30%

Correlation

The correlation between LNGZX and BGCBX is 0.94, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.94
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.94
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 7, 2021	0.94

The correlation between LNGZX and BGCBX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

LNGZX vs. BGCBX — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

LNGZX

LNGZX Risk / Return Rank: 3
LNGZX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
LNGZX Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
LNGZX Omega Ratio Rank: 3
LNGZX Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
LNGZX Martin Ratio Rank: 3

BGCBX

BGCBX Risk / Return Rank: 12
BGCBX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
BGCBX Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
BGCBX Omega Ratio Rank: 12
BGCBX Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
BGCBX Martin Ratio Rank: 10

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

LNGZX vs. BGCBX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX) and Baillie Gifford China Equities Fund (BGCBX). 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.

	LNGZX	BGCBX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.22	0.49	-0.71
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.16	0.80	-0.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.98	1.09	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.21	0.68	-0.89
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.41	1.37	-1.78

LNGZX vs. BGCBX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LNGZX Sharpe Ratio is -0.22, which is lower than the BGCBX Sharpe Ratio of 0.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LNGZX and BGCBX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

LNGZX vs. BGCBX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LNGZX drawdown since its inception was -73.37%, which is greater than BGCBX's maximum drawdown of -59.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LNGZX and BGCBX.

Drawdown Indicators

	LNGZX	BGCBX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-73.37%	-59.07%	-14.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.54%	-13.48%	-10.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.58%	-27.02%	+2.44%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-56.81%	-56.22%	-0.59%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-67.94%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-53.57%	-30.28%	-23.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.67%	-38.04%	+11.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.71%	6.74%	+4.97%

Volatility

LNGZX vs. BGCBX - Volatility Comparison

Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX) has a higher volatility of 6.62% compared to Baillie Gifford China Equities Fund (BGCBX) at 6.03%. This indicates that LNGZX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BGCBX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LNGZX	BGCBX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.62%	6.03%	+0.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.18%	13.55%	+2.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.84%	19.04%	+2.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.57%	26.54%	+3.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.61%	26.83%	-0.22%

LNGZX vs. BGCBX - Expense Ratio Comparison

LNGZX has a 1.25% expense ratio, which is higher than BGCBX's 0.96% expense ratio.

Dividends

LNGZX vs. BGCBX - Dividend Comparison

LNGZX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.11%, more than BGCBX's 0.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BGCBX Baillie Gifford China Equities Fund	0.94%	0.91%	2.03%	1.50%	0.66%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LNGZX Columbia Greater China Fund	2.11%	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

Can I hold both LNGZX and BGCBX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, LNGZX and BGCBX 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.

Which is riskier, LNGZX or BGCBX?

LNGZX has higher volatility (6.62%) compared to BGCBX (6.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LNGZX dropped -73.37% vs BGCBX's -59.07%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BGCBX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.49 vs -0.22), 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.