LNGZX vs. MCSMX

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

LNGZX (Columbia Greater China Fund) and MCSMX (Matthews China Small Companies Fund) are both China Equities funds. Over the past 10 years, LNGZX returned 3.69%/yr vs 14.78%/yr for MCSMX. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LNGZX charges 1.25%/yr vs 1.41%/yr for MCSMX.

Performance

LNGZX vs. MCSMX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX) 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, LNGZX achieves a -11.87% return, which is significantly lower than MCSMX's 48.51% return. Over the past 10 years, LNGZX has underperformed MCSMX with an annualized return of 3.69%, while MCSMX has yielded a comparatively higher 14.78% 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%

MCSMX

• 1D: -4.39%
• 1M: 5.46%
• YTD: 48.51%
• 6M: 47.23%
• 1Y: 74.62%
• 3Y*: 23.22%
• 5Y*: 1.57%
• 10Y*: 14.78%

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

LNGZX vs. MCSMX - 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%
MCSMX Matthews China Small Companies Fund	48.51%	28.85%	2.82%	-17.50%	-31.25%	6.71%	82.73%	35.41%	-17.65%	53.71%

Correlation

The correlation between LNGZX and MCSMX is 0.58, 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	0.58
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.77
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 2, 2011	0.79

Over the past year, the correlation between LNGZX and MCSMX has dropped to 0.58 - well below their long-term average of 0.79, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Return for Risk

LNGZX vs. MCSMX — 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

MCSMX

MCSMX Risk / Return Rank: 94
MCSMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
MCSMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
MCSMX Omega Ratio Rank: 88
MCSMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
MCSMX Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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. MCSMX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

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	MCSMX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.04	3.31	-3.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.09	4.10	-4.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.57	-0.56
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.04	6.67	-6.71
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.09	19.09	-19.18

LNGZX vs. MCSMX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LNGZX Sharpe Ratio is -0.04, which is lower than the MCSMX Sharpe Ratio of 3.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LNGZX 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.

Drawdowns

LNGZX vs. MCSMX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LNGZX drawdown since its inception was -73.37%, which is greater than MCSMX's maximum drawdown of -55.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LNGZX and MCSMX.

Drawdown Indicators

	LNGZX	MCSMX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-73.37%	-55.77%	-17.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.04%	-12.32%	-8.72%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.71%	-26.50%	-0.21%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-63.73%	-53.98%	-9.75%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-67.94%	-55.77%	-12.17%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-54.04%	-4.39%	-49.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.57%	-20.15%	-6.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.49%	4.27%	+5.22%

Volatility

LNGZX vs. MCSMX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX) is 6.87%, while Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) has a volatility of 13.43%. This indicates that LNGZX 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

	LNGZX	MCSMX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.87%	13.43%	-6.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.96%	21.30%	-5.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.24%	24.81%	-3.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.04%	24.95%	+5.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.57%	22.62%	+3.95%

LNGZX vs. MCSMX - Expense Ratio Comparison

LNGZX has a 1.25% expense ratio, which is lower than MCSMX's 1.41% expense ratio.

Dividends

LNGZX vs. MCSMX - Dividend Comparison

LNGZX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.13%, more than MCSMX's 1.50% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
MCSMX Matthews China Small Companies Fund	1.50%	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 LNGZX and MCSMX in my portfolio?

LNGZX and MCSMX have a correlation of 0.58, 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 MCSMX?

MCSMX has higher volatility (13.43%) compared to LNGZX (6.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LNGZX dropped -73.37% vs MCSMX's -55.77%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCSMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.31 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.