MCSMX vs. FCHKX
Compare and contrast key facts about Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) and Fidelity Advisor China Region Fund Class C (FCHKX).
MCSMX is managed by Matthews. It was launched on May 30, 2011. FCHKX is managed by Fidelity. It was launched on May 9, 2008.
Performance
MCSMX vs. FCHKX - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
MCSMX vs. FCHKX - 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% |
FCHKX Fidelity Advisor China Region Fund Class C | 5.23% | 41.13% | 21.90% | -1.27% | -24.66% | -14.60% | 46.29% | 33.74% | -18.29% | 50.37% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MCSMX achieves a 10.66% return, which is significantly higher than FCHKX's 5.23% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with MCSMX having a 11.23% annualized return and FCHKX not far behind at 11.00%.
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%
FCHKX
- 1D
- -0.68%
- 1M
- -9.11%
- YTD
- 5.23%
- 6M
- 5.73%
- 1Y
- 42.37%
- 3Y*
- 18.66%
- 5Y*
- 1.75%
- 10Y*
- 11.00%
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. FCHKX - Expense Ratio Comparison
MCSMX has a 1.41% expense ratio, which is lower than FCHKX's 1.96% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
MCSMX vs. FCHKX — Risk / Return Rank
MCSMX
FCHKX
MCSMX vs. FCHKX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) and Fidelity Advisor China Region Fund Class C (FCHKX). 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 | FCHKX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.48 | 1.81 | -0.32 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.94 | 2.34 | -0.40 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.34 | -0.05 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.32 | 2.42 | -1.10 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.46 | 9.31 | -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 | FCHKX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.48 | 1.81 | -0.32 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.11 | 0.07 | -0.18 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.51 | 0.50 | +0.01 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.34 | 0.18 | +0.16 |
Correlation
The correlation between MCSMX and FCHKX 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. FCHKX - Dividend Comparison
MCSMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.01%, more than FCHKX's 0.83% 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% |
FCHKX Fidelity Advisor China Region Fund Class C | 0.83% | 0.88% | 0.63% | 0.63% | 0.00% | 11.31% | 4.38% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.08% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
MCSMX vs. FCHKX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MCSMX drawdown since its inception was -55.77%, smaller than the maximum FCHKX drawdown of -59.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCSMX and FCHKX.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| MCSMX | FCHKX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -55.77% | -59.14% | +3.37% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.69% | -15.97% | +0.28% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -53.98% | -54.57% | +0.59% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -55.77% | -59.14% | +3.37% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.92% | -10.88% | -14.04% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -20.31% | -21.52% | +1.21% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.63% | 4.15% | +1.48% |
Volatility
MCSMX vs. FCHKX - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) is 8.13%, while Fidelity Advisor China Region Fund Class C (FCHKX) has a volatility of 9.28%. This indicates that MCSMX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FCHKX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| MCSMX | FCHKX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.13% | 9.28% | -1.15% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.70% | 16.44% | -1.74% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 22.12% | 23.15% | -1.03% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.01% | 23.96% | +0.05% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.99% | 22.09% | -0.10% |