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 11.64%/yr vs 2.95%/yr for LNGZX. Their 0.78 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. 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 20.37% return, which is significantly higher than LNGZX's -10.99% return. Over the past 10 years, MCSMX has outperformed LNGZX with an annualized return of 11.64%, while LNGZX has yielded a comparatively lower 2.95% 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%
LNGZX
- 1D
- 1.31%
- 1M
- 3.76%
- 6M
- -14.42%
- YTD
- -10.99%
- 1Y
- -2.31%
- 3Y*
- 1.74%
- 5Y*
- -8.49%
- 10Y*
- 2.95%
- ALL TIME*
- 7.28%
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. LNGZX - 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% |
LNGZX Columbia Greater China Fund | -10.99% | 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 0.57, 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. | 0.57 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.72 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.76 |
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 LNGZX has dropped to 0.57 - 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. 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 | +1.31 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.75 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 0.98 | +0.23 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.29 | -0.21 | +1.49 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.79 | -0.41 | +5.20 |
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 | -24.88% | -23.54% | -1.34% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.88% | -23.98% | -0.90% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -51.10% | -56.81% | +5.71% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -55.77% | -67.94% | +12.17% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.88% | -53.57% | +28.69% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -20.10% | -26.67% | +6.57% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.59% | 11.71% | -5.12% |
Volatility
MCSMX vs. LNGZX - Volatility Comparison
Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) has a higher volatility of 14.27% compared to Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX) at 6.62%. 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 | 14.27% | 6.62% | +7.65% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 26.46% | 16.18% | +10.28% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 29.46% | 21.84% | +7.62% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 25.54% | 29.57% | -4.03% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.15% | 26.61% | -3.46% |
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 1.85%, less than LNGZX's 2.11% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LNGZX Columbia Greater China Fund | 2.11% | 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 | 1.85% | 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 LNGZX have a correlation of 0.57, 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 LNGZX (6.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCSMX dropped -55.77% vs LNGZX's -73.37%.
MCSMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.09 vs -0.22), 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