LNGZX vs. EVCGX

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

LNGZX (Columbia Greater China Fund) and EVCGX (Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund) are both China Equities funds. Over the past 10 years, LNGZX returned 3.69%/yr vs 4.81%/yr for EVCGX. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LNGZX charges 1.25%/yr vs 1.53%/yr for EVCGX.

Performance

LNGZX vs. EVCGX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX) and Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund (EVCGX). 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 EVCGX's -9.92% return. Over the past 10 years, LNGZX has underperformed EVCGX with an annualized return of 3.69%, while EVCGX has yielded a comparatively higher 4.81% 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%

EVCGX

• 1D: -1.83%
• 1M: -5.08%
• YTD: -9.92%
• 6M: -10.72%
• 1Y: -3.65%
• 3Y*: 5.10%
• 5Y*: -7.16%
• 10Y*: 4.81%

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

LNGZX vs. EVCGX - 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%
EVCGX Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund	-9.92%	26.06%	9.30%	-17.33%	-22.53%	-9.61%	25.22%	23.32%	-9.90%	49.26%

Correlation

The correlation between LNGZX and EVCGX is 0.95 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.95
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.97
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96
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	0.91

The correlation between LNGZX and EVCGX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

LNGZX vs. EVCGX — 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

EVCGX

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

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. EVCGX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX) and Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund (EVCGX). 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	EVCGX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.04	-0.08	+0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.09	0.02	+0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.00	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.04	-0.09	+0.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.09	-0.18	+0.08

LNGZX vs. EVCGX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LNGZX Sharpe Ratio is -0.04, which is higher than the EVCGX Sharpe Ratio of -0.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LNGZX and EVCGX, 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. EVCGX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LNGZX drawdown since its inception was -73.37%, which is greater than EVCGX's maximum drawdown of -68.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LNGZX and EVCGX.

Drawdown Indicators

	LNGZX	EVCGX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-73.37%	-68.37%	-5.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.04%	-17.61%	-3.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.71%	-27.32%	+0.61%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-63.73%	-53.13%	-10.60%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-67.94%	-56.84%	-11.10%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-54.04%	-36.96%	-17.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.57%	-28.07%	+1.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.49%	8.54%	+0.95%

Volatility

LNGZX vs. EVCGX - Volatility Comparison

Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX) has a higher volatility of 6.87% compared to Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund (EVCGX) at 5.69%. This indicates that LNGZX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EVCGX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LNGZX	EVCGX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.87%	5.69%	+1.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.96%	13.89%	+2.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.24%	18.71%	+2.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.04%	25.75%	+4.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.57%	22.14%	+4.43%

LNGZX vs. EVCGX - Expense Ratio Comparison

LNGZX has a 1.25% expense ratio, which is lower than EVCGX's 1.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

LNGZX vs. EVCGX - Dividend Comparison

LNGZX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.13%, more than EVCGX's 1.76% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EVCGX Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund	1.76%	1.58%	2.15%	8.47%	6.09%	5.43%	9.85%	3.19%	9.89%	11.34%	0.94%	6.33%
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 EVCGX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, LNGZX and EVCGX 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 EVCGX?

LNGZX has higher volatility (6.87%) compared to EVCGX (5.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LNGZX dropped -73.37% vs EVCGX's -68.37%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LNGZX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.04 vs -0.08), 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.