MCSMX vs. FHKCX
Compare and contrast key facts about Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) and Fidelity China Region Fund (FHKCX).
MCSMX is managed by Matthews. It was launched on May 30, 2011. FHKCX is managed by Fidelity. It was launched on Nov 1, 1995.
Performance
MCSMX vs. FHKCX - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
MCSMX vs. FHKCX - 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% |
FHKCX Fidelity China Region Fund | 5.51% | 42.56% | 23.15% | -0.29% | -23.87% | -13.69% | 47.85% | 35.12% | -17.43% | 51.94% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MCSMX achieves a 10.66% return, which is significantly higher than FHKCX's 5.51% return. Over the past 10 years, MCSMX has underperformed FHKCX with an annualized return of 11.23%, while FHKCX has yielded a comparatively higher 12.16% 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%
FHKCX
- 1D
- -0.67%
- 1M
- -9.04%
- YTD
- 5.51%
- 6M
- 6.28%
- 1Y
- 43.83%
- 3Y*
- 19.86%
- 5Y*
- 2.80%
- 10Y*
- 12.16%
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. FHKCX - Expense Ratio Comparison
MCSMX has a 1.41% expense ratio, which is higher than FHKCX's 0.91% expense ratio.
Return for Risk
MCSMX vs. FHKCX — Risk / Return Rank
MCSMX
FHKCX
MCSMX vs. FHKCX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) and Fidelity China Region Fund (FHKCX). 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 | FHKCX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.48 | 1.87 | -0.38 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.94 | 2.41 | -0.47 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.35 | -0.06 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.32 | 2.51 | -1.20 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.46 | 9.74 | -5.28 |
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 | FHKCX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.48 | 1.87 | -0.38 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.11 | 0.12 | -0.23 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.51 | 0.55 | -0.04 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.34 | 0.40 | -0.06 |
Correlation
The correlation between MCSMX and FHKCX 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. FHKCX - Dividend Comparison
MCSMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.01%, more than FHKCX's 1.66% 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% |
FHKCX Fidelity China Region Fund | 1.66% | 1.75% | 1.39% | 1.92% | 1.05% | 10.77% | 4.85% | 0.66% | 0.83% | 0.39% | 1.35% | 15.47% |
Drawdowns
MCSMX vs. FHKCX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MCSMX drawdown since its inception was -55.77%, smaller than the maximum FHKCX drawdown of -61.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCSMX and FHKCX.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| MCSMX | FHKCX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -55.77% | -61.96% | +6.19% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.69% | -15.94% | +0.25% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -53.98% | -53.82% | -0.16% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -55.77% | -58.41% | +2.64% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.92% | -10.80% | -14.12% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -20.31% | -20.37% | +0.06% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.63% | 4.12% | +1.51% |
Volatility
MCSMX vs. FHKCX - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) is 8.13%, while Fidelity China Region Fund (FHKCX) has a volatility of 9.27%. This indicates that MCSMX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FHKCX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| MCSMX | FHKCX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.13% | 9.27% | -1.14% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.70% | 16.45% | -1.75% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 22.12% | 23.16% | -1.04% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.01% | 23.97% | +0.04% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.99% | 22.10% | -0.11% |