CGRO vs MILN
CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF vs Global X Millennial Consumer ETF
Which is better, CGRO or MILN?
Each has led over a different period.
MILN has a lower expense ratio. CGRO led over 5Y and the full window, MILN over 1Y and 3Y. MILN is less concentrated, with 33.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.0%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CGRO | MILN |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.89% | 0.50%Best |
| AUM | $2M | $88M |
| Dividend Yield | 3.41% | 0.30% |
| Holdings | 33 | 164 |
| YTD Return | -25.67% | -6.90%Best |
| 1Y Return | -31.69% | -11.11%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +1.93% | +12.78%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +1.93%Best | +0.43% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 61.5% | 21.1%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -42.1%Best | -44.4% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $11,003Best | $10,217 |
| Top 10 Weight | 57.0% | 33.5%Best |
| Fund Family | CORE VALUES ALPHA | Global X by mirae Asset |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Oct 16, 2023 | May 4, 2016 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 29, 2020 to Oct 9, 2026 (6.3 years).
CGRO vs MILN growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 6.3 years both funds cover.
CGRO vs MILN Performance
CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) is an ETF from CORE VALUES ALPHA and Global X Millennial Consumer ETF (MILN) is an ETF from Global X by mirae Asset. Over the past year CGRO returned -31.69% while MILN returned -11.11%. Year to date, CGRO is down 25.67% versus a loss of 6.90% for MILN.
Over three years, CGRO compounded at +1.93% per year against +12.78% for MILN; over five years the annualized figures are +1.93% and +0.43% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, CGRO has the edge at +13.13% annualized vs +8.00%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CGRO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 61.5% compared with 21.1% for MILN. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -42.1% for CGRO and -44.4% for MILN. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.01. They move largely independently of each other.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CGRO charges 0.89% per year while MILN charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $89 vs $50 annually, a gap of $39 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CGRO currently yields 3.41% against 0.30% for MILN.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 32 holdings in CGRO and 80 in MILN, totalling 99.9% and 99.9% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
0 positions in common, counted across the 32 positions we hold weights for in CGRO and 80 in MILN, against full books of 33 and 164.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 79 positions for MILN that do not appear in our book for CGRO (96.3% of the fund), and 5 for CGRO that do not appear in MILN (16.0%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of CGRO and MILN you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CGRO or MILN?
CGRO has an expense ratio of 0.89% while MILN charges 0.50%. MILN is the cheaper option, by $39 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, CGRO or MILN?
Over the past year CGRO returned -31.69% vs -11.11% for MILN, so MILN leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), CGRO annualized +13.13% vs +8.00% for MILN. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CGRO or MILN?
CGRO has been the more volatile fund at 61.5% annualized versus 21.1% for MILN. Worst drawdown: CGRO -42.1% vs MILN -44.4%.
Should I hold both CGRO and MILN?
CGRO and MILN have a monthly-return correlation of 0.01, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, CGRO or MILN?
CGRO yields 3.41% while MILN yields 0.30%, so CGRO currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is MILN better than CGRO?
MILN has a lower expense ratio. CGRO led over 5Y and the full window, MILN over 1Y and 3Y. MILN is less concentrated, with 33.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.