MCSMX vs. LNGZX
MCSMX (Matthews China Small Companies Fund) and LNGZX (Columbia Greater China Fund) are both China Equities funds. Over the past 10 years, MCSMX returned 15.01%/yr vs 3.90%/yr for LNGZX. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MCSMX charges 1.41%/yr vs 1.25%/yr for LNGZX.
Performance
MCSMX vs. LNGZX - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MCSMX achieves a 53.58% return, which is significantly higher than LNGZX's -9.19% return. Over the past 10 years, MCSMX has outperformed LNGZX with an annualized return of 15.01%, while LNGZX has yielded a comparatively lower 3.90% annualized return.
MCSMX
- 1D
- 3.72%
- 1M
- 9.06%
- YTD
- 53.58%
- 6M
- 52.25%
- 1Y
- 85.81%
- 3Y*
- 22.20%
- 5Y*
- 3.08%
- 10Y*
- 15.01%
LNGZX
- 1D
- 0.58%
- 1M
- -4.66%
- YTD
- -9.19%
- 6M
- -10.26%
- 1Y
- 3.04%
- 3Y*
- 3.37%
- 5Y*
- -10.92%
- 10Y*
- 3.90%
MCSMX vs. LNGZX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MCSMX Matthews China Small Companies Fund | 53.58% | 28.85% | 2.82% | -17.50% | -31.25% | 6.71% | 82.73% | 35.41% | -17.65% | 53.71% |
LNGZX Columbia Greater China Fund | -9.19% | 27.49% | 12.29% | -18.70% | -28.42% | -25.21% | 46.04% | 32.95% | -20.01% | 59.90% |
Correlation
The correlation between MCSMX and LNGZX 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 MCSMX and LNGZX has dropped to 0.58 - well below their long-term average of 0.79, 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. LNGZX — Risk / Return Rank
MCSMX
LNGZX
MCSMX vs. LNGZX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) and Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX). 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 | LNGZX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +3.39 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +4.06 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.60 | 1.04 | +0.56 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 6.95 | 0.12 | +6.83 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 19.94 | 0.25 | +19.69 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MCSMX vs. LNGZX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MCSMX drawdown since its inception was -55.77%, smaller than the maximum LNGZX drawdown of -73.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCSMX and LNGZX.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MCSMX | LNGZX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -55.77% | -73.37% | +17.60% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.32% | -19.13% | +6.81% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -26.50% | -26.71% | +0.21% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -53.98% | -63.73% | +9.75% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -55.77% | -67.94% | +12.17% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -52.64% | +52.64% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -20.16% | -26.56% | +6.40% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.26% | 9.32% | -5.06% |
Volatility
MCSMX vs. LNGZX - Volatility Comparison
Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) has a higher volatility of 13.03% compared to Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX) at 6.30%. This indicates that MCSMX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LNGZX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MCSMX | LNGZX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 13.03% | 6.30% | +6.73% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 20.76% | 15.68% | +5.08% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.46% | 21.03% | +3.43% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.88% | 30.00% | -5.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.57% | 26.56% | -3.99% |
MCSMX vs. LNGZX - Expense Ratio Comparison
MCSMX has a 1.41% expense ratio, which is higher than LNGZX's 1.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
MCSMX vs. LNGZX - Dividend Comparison
MCSMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.45%, less than LNGZX's 2.07% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LNGZX Columbia Greater China Fund | 2.07% | 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 | 1.45% | 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 LNGZX 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.
MCSMX has higher volatility (13.03%) compared to LNGZX (6.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCSMX dropped -55.77% vs LNGZX's -73.37%.
MCSMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.50 vs 0.11), 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 LNGZX
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