MCSMX vs. EVCGX
MCSMX (Matthews China Small Companies Fund) and EVCGX (Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund) are both China Equities funds. Over the past 10 years, MCSMX returned 11.64%/yr vs 4.38%/yr for EVCGX. Their 0.78 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. MCSMX charges 1.41%/yr vs 1.53%/yr for EVCGX.
Performance
MCSMX vs. EVCGX - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MCSMX achieves a 20.37% return, which is significantly higher than EVCGX's -4.71% return. Over the past 10 years, MCSMX has outperformed EVCGX with an annualized return of 11.64%, while EVCGX has yielded a comparatively lower 4.38% annualized return.
MCSMX
- 1D
- -0.15%
- 1M
- -17.35%
- 6M
- 8.68%
- YTD
- 20.37%
- 1Y
- 33.61%
- 3Y*
- 10.82%
- 5Y*
- -1.67%
- 10Y*
- 11.64%
- ALL TIME*
- 7.53%
EVCGX
- 1D
- 0.95%
- 1M
- 6.98%
- 6M
- -7.45%
- YTD
- -4.71%
- 1Y
- 2.16%
- 3Y*
- 3.94%
- 5Y*
- -4.55%
- 10Y*
- 4.38%
- ALL TIME*
- 5.38%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | |
| $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
MCSMX vs. EVCGX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MCSMX Matthews China Small Companies Fund | 20.37% | 28.85% | 2.82% | -17.50% | -31.25% | 6.71% | 82.73% | 35.41% | -17.65% | 53.71% |
EVCGX Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund | -4.71% | 26.06% | 9.30% | -17.33% | -22.53% | -9.61% | 25.22% | 23.32% | -9.90% | 49.26% |
Correlation
The correlation between MCSMX and EVCGX is 0.53, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.53 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.70 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.75 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.76 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 2, 2011 | 0.78 |
Over the past year, the correlation between MCSMX and EVCGX has dropped to 0.53 - well below their long-term average of 0.78, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
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
MCSMX vs. EVCGX — Risk / Return Rank
MCSMX
EVCGX
MCSMX vs. EVCGX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) 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.
| MCSMX | EVCGX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.12 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.49 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 1.01 | +0.20 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.29 | -0.03 | +1.32 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.79 | -0.06 | +4.85 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MCSMX vs. EVCGX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MCSMX drawdown since its inception was -55.77%, smaller than the maximum EVCGX drawdown of -68.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCSMX and EVCGX.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MCSMX | EVCGX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -55.77% | -68.37% | +12.60% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -24.88% | -19.19% | -5.69% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.88% | -25.40% | +0.52% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -51.10% | -49.77% | -1.33% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -55.77% | -56.84% | +1.07% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.88% | -33.31% | +8.43% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -20.10% | -28.09% | +7.99% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.59% | 9.92% | -3.33% |
Volatility
MCSMX vs. EVCGX - Volatility Comparison
Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) has a higher volatility of 14.27% compared to Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund (EVCGX) at 6.08%. This indicates that MCSMX'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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MCSMX | EVCGX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 14.27% | 6.08% | +8.19% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 26.46% | 14.14% | +12.32% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 29.46% | 19.34% | +10.12% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 25.54% | 25.75% | -0.21% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.15% | 22.17% | +0.98% |
MCSMX vs. EVCGX - Expense Ratio Comparison
MCSMX has a 1.41% expense ratio, which is lower than EVCGX's 1.53% expense ratio.
Dividends
MCSMX vs. EVCGX - Dividend Comparison
MCSMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.85%, more than EVCGX's 1.66% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EVCGX Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund | 1.66% | 1.58% | 2.15% | 8.47% | 6.09% | 5.43% | 9.85% | 3.19% | 9.89% | 11.34% | 0.94% | 6.33% |
MCSMX Matthews China Small Companies Fund | 1.85% | 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
MCSMX and EVCGX have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MCSMX has higher volatility (14.27%) compared to EVCGX (6.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCSMX dropped -55.77% vs EVCGX's -68.37%.
MCSMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.09 vs -0.03), 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 MCSMX and EVCGX
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