MCSMX vs. LNGZX

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

MCSMX (Matthews China Small Companies Fund) and LNGZX (Columbia Greater China Fund) are both China Equities funds. Over the past 10 years, MCSMX returned 13.87%/yr vs 3.25%/yr for LNGZX. A 0.78 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

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) and Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MCSMX achieves a 43.09% return, which is significantly higher than LNGZX's -11.14% return. Over the past 10 years, MCSMX has outperformed LNGZX with an annualized return of 13.87%, while LNGZX has yielded a comparatively lower 3.25% annualized return.

MCSMX

• 1D: -2.62%
• 1M: 4.67%
• 6M: 34.51%
• YTD: 43.09%
• 1Y: 62.06%
• 3Y*: 19.86%
• 5Y*: 0.63%
• 10Y*: 13.87%

LNGZX

• 1D: 0.61%
• 1M: -3.23%
• 6M: -14.60%
• YTD: -11.14%
• 1Y: -1.39%
• 3Y*: 5.20%
• 5Y*: -10.72%
• 10Y*: 3.25%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

MCSMX vs. LNGZX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
MCSMX Matthews China Small Companies Fund	43.09%	28.85%	2.82%	-17.50%	-31.25%	6.71%	82.73%	35.41%	-17.65%	53.71%
LNGZX Columbia Greater China Fund	-11.14%	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 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	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.73
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.76
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	0.78

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.

Return for Risk

MCSMX vs. LNGZX — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

MCSMX

MCSMX Risk / Return Rank: 87
MCSMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
MCSMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
MCSMX Omega Ratio Rank: 81
MCSMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
MCSMX Martin Ratio Rank: 91

LNGZX

LNGZX Risk / Return Rank: 3
LNGZX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
LNGZX Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
LNGZX Omega Ratio Rank: 3
LNGZX Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
LNGZX Martin Ratio Rank: 3

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

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 ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.35	-0.04	+2.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.97	0.09	+2.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.01	+0.40
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.15	-0.04	+5.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.84	-0.09	+13.93

MCSMX vs. LNGZX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCSMX Sharpe Ratio is 2.35, which is higher than the LNGZX Sharpe Ratio of -0.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCSMX and LNGZX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCSMX	LNGZX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-55.77%	-73.37%	+17.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.32%	-23.54%	+11.22%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.50%	-26.71%	+0.21%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-53.76%	-61.41%	+7.65%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-55.77%	-67.94%	+12.17%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.69%	-53.65%	+42.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.10%	-26.61%	+6.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.52%	10.54%	-6.02%

Volatility

MCSMX vs. LNGZX - Volatility Comparison

Matthews China Small Companies Fund (MCSMX) has a higher volatility of 15.08% compared to Columbia Greater China Fund (LNGZX) at 6.66%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	MCSMX	LNGZX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.08%	6.66%	+8.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.77%	16.08%	+7.69%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.98%	21.55%	+5.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.35%	29.99%	-4.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.85%	26.58%	-3.73%

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 1.56%, 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	1.56%	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

Can I hold both MCSMX and LNGZX in my portfolio?

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.

Which is riskier, MCSMX or LNGZX?

MCSMX has higher volatility (15.08%) compared to LNGZX (6.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCSMX dropped -55.77% vs LNGZX's -73.37%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCSMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.35 vs -0.04), 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.