MCSMX vs. EVCGX
Compare and contrast key facts about Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) and Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund (EVCGX).
MCSMX is managed by Matthews. It was launched on May 30, 2011. EVCGX is managed by Eaton Vance. It was launched on Oct 27, 1992.
Performance
MCSMX vs. EVCGX - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
MCSMX vs. EVCGX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MCSMX Matthews China Small Companies Fund | 10.66% | 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 | -9.64% | 26.06% | 9.30% | -17.33% | -22.53% | -9.61% | 25.22% | 23.32% | -9.90% | 49.26% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MCSMX achieves a 10.66% return, which is significantly higher than EVCGX's -9.64% return. Over the past 10 years, MCSMX has outperformed EVCGX with an annualized return of 11.23%, while EVCGX has yielded a comparatively lower 4.66% annualized return.
MCSMX
- 1D
- -0.63%
- 1M
- -10.72%
- YTD
- 10.66%
- 6M
- 6.47%
- 1Y
- 31.98%
- 3Y*
- 6.45%
- 5Y*
- -2.56%
- 10Y*
- 11.23%
EVCGX
- 1D
- -0.06%
- 1M
- -7.78%
- YTD
- -9.64%
- 6M
- -16.17%
- 1Y
- -0.54%
- 3Y*
- 0.48%
- 5Y*
- -7.00%
- 10Y*
- 4.66%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
MCSMX vs. EVCGX - Expense Ratio Comparison
MCSMX has a 1.41% expense ratio, which is lower than EVCGX's 1.53% expense ratio.
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.
| MCSMX | EVCGX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.48 | -0.03 | +1.52 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.94 | 0.10 | +1.84 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.01 | +0.28 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.32 | -0.14 | +1.46 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.46 | -0.39 | +4.85 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| MCSMX | EVCGX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.48 | -0.03 | +1.52 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.11 | -0.27 | +0.17 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.51 | 0.21 | +0.30 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.34 | 0.23 | +0.11 |
Correlation
The correlation between MCSMX and EVCGX is 0.79, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Dividends
MCSMX vs. EVCGX - Dividend Comparison
MCSMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.01%, more than EVCGX's 1.75% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MCSMX Matthews China Small Companies Fund | 2.01% | 2.23% | 1.35% | 2.36% | 1.78% | 26.38% | 16.98% | 1.03% | 2.25% | 5.66% | 4.79% | 8.88% |
EVCGX Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund | 1.75% | 1.58% | 2.15% | 8.47% | 6.09% | 5.43% | 9.85% | 3.19% | 9.89% | 11.34% | 0.94% | 6.33% |
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 graphics...
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 | -15.69% | -17.35% | +1.66% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -53.98% | -54.46% | +0.48% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -55.77% | -56.84% | +1.07% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.92% | -36.76% | +11.84% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -20.31% | -28.03% | +7.72% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.63% | 6.18% | -0.55% |
Volatility
MCSMX vs. EVCGX - Volatility Comparison
Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) has a higher volatility of 8.13% compared to Eaton Vance Greater China Growth Fund (EVCGX) at 6.18%. 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 graphics...
Volatility by Period
| MCSMX | EVCGX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.13% | 6.18% | +1.95% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.70% | 13.52% | +1.18% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 22.12% | 20.52% | +1.60% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.01% | 25.56% | -1.55% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.99% | 22.06% | -0.07% |