LNGZX vs. CBALX

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

LNGZX (Columbia Greater China Fund) and CBALX (Columbia Balanced Fund) are both mutual funds - LNGZX is a China Equities fund managed by Columbia, while CBALX is a Diversified Portfolio fund managed by Columbia. Over the past 10 years, LNGZX returned 3.69%/yr vs 10.12%/yr for CBALX. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LNGZX charges 1.25%/yr vs 0.67%/yr for CBALX.

Performance

LNGZX vs. CBALX - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LNGZX achieves a -11.87% return, which is significantly lower than CBALX's 4.54% return. Over the past 10 years, LNGZX has underperformed CBALX with an annualized return of 3.69%, while CBALX has yielded a comparatively higher 10.12% annualized return.

LNGZX

• 1D: -3.14%
• 1M: -7.48%
• YTD: -11.87%
• 6M: -12.39%
• 1Y: -3.53%
• 3Y*: 4.88%
• 5Y*: -11.83%
• 10Y*: 3.69%

CBALX

• 1D: -0.89%
• 1M: -0.17%
• YTD: 4.54%
• 6M: 3.90%
• 1Y: 14.32%
• 3Y*: 14.12%
• 5Y*: 7.78%
• 10Y*: 10.12%

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

LNGZX vs. CBALX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
LNGZX Columbia Greater China Fund	-11.87%	27.49%	12.29%	-18.70%	-28.42%	-25.21%	46.04%	32.95%	-20.01%	59.90%
CBALX Columbia Balanced Fund	4.54%	14.14%	14.60%	21.49%	-16.63%	14.92%	17.91%	23.05%	-5.75%	14.29%

Correlation

The correlation between LNGZX and CBALX is 0.52, 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	0.52
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.43
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.42
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 2, 1998	0.49

The correlation between LNGZX and CBALX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.42 to 0.52 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

LNGZX vs. CBALX — Risk / Return Rank

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

LNGZX

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

CBALX

CBALX Risk / Return Rank: 44
CBALX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
CBALX Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
CBALX Omega Ratio Rank: 43
CBALX Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
CBALX Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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.

LNGZX vs. CBALX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX) and Columbia Balanced Fund (CBALX). 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	CBALX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.04	1.74	-1.78
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.09	2.45	-2.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.32	-0.31
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.04	2.32	-2.36
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.09	9.63	-9.72

LNGZX vs. CBALX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LNGZX Sharpe Ratio is -0.04, which is lower than the CBALX Sharpe Ratio of 1.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LNGZX and CBALX, 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. CBALX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LNGZX drawdown since its inception was -73.37%, which is greater than CBALX's maximum drawdown of -34.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LNGZX and CBALX.

Drawdown Indicators

	LNGZX	CBALX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-73.37%	-34.53%	-38.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.04%	-6.63%	-14.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.71%	-12.06%	-14.65%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-63.73%	-20.91%	-42.82%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-67.94%	-22.73%	-45.21%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-54.04%	-2.14%	-51.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.57%	-5.30%	-21.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.49%	1.59%	+7.90%

Volatility

LNGZX vs. CBALX - Volatility Comparison

Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX) has a higher volatility of 6.87% compared to Columbia Balanced Fund (CBALX) at 3.81%. This indicates that LNGZX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CBALX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LNGZX	CBALX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.87%	3.81%	+3.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.96%	7.14%	+8.82%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.24%	8.84%	+12.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.04%	11.18%	+18.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.57%	11.37%	+15.20%

LNGZX vs. CBALX - Expense Ratio Comparison

LNGZX has a 1.25% expense ratio, which is higher than CBALX's 0.67% expense ratio.

Dividends

LNGZX vs. CBALX - Dividend Comparison

LNGZX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.13%, less than CBALX's 6.27% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CBALX Columbia Balanced Fund	6.27%	6.42%	7.83%	1.84%	5.36%	9.26%	5.31%	4.16%	5.82%	2.79%	1.60%	4.05%
LNGZX Columbia Greater China Fund	2.13%	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 CBALX in my portfolio?

LNGZX and CBALX have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LNGZX or CBALX?

LNGZX has higher volatility (6.87%) compared to CBALX (3.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LNGZX dropped -73.37% vs CBALX's -34.53%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CBALX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.74 vs -0.04), 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.