C300.L vs. CNAA.L
C300.L (Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) and CNAA.L (Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR) are both China Equities funds - C300.L tracks the S&P China A 300 Index while CNAA.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, C300.L returned 14.87%/yr vs 9.60%/yr for CNAA.L. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. Both charge a 0.35% expense ratio.
Performance
C300.L vs. CNAA.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, C300.L achieves a 9.32% return, which is significantly higher than CNAA.L's 4.27% return.
C300.L
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- -5.05%
- 6M
- 6.40%
- YTD
- 9.32%
- 1Y
- 33.73%
- 3Y*
- 14.87%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CNAA.L
- 1D
- -2.29%
- 1M
- -5.55%
- 6M
- 1.58%
- YTD
- 4.27%
- 1Y
- 24.38%
- 3Y*
- 9.60%
- 5Y*
- -1.30%
- 10Y*
- 4.25%
C300.L vs. CNAA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C300.L Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc | 9.32% | 33.78% | 14.79% | -11.81% | 1.72% |
CNAA.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR | 4.27% | 26.12% | 10.92% | -14.19% | -0.98% |
Correlation
The correlation between C300.L and CNAA.L is 0.97 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.97 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.97 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 9, 2022 | 0.97 |
The correlation between C300.L and CNAA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.97 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
C300.L vs. CNAA.L — Risk / Return Rank
C300.L
CNAA.L
C300.L vs. CNAA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C300.L) and Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L). 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.
| C300.L | CNAA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.39 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.50 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 1.24 | +0.06 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.43 | 3.17 | +1.27 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.47 | 8.38 | +4.09 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
C300.L vs. CNAA.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum C300.L drawdown since its inception was -31.77%, smaller than the maximum CNAA.L drawdown of -56.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for C300.L and CNAA.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| C300.L | CNAA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -31.77% | -56.07% | +24.30% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.64% | -8.01% | +0.37% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -28.06% | -28.67% | +0.61% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -44.54% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -49.66% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -7.33% | -17.89% | +10.56% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -13.80% | -32.77% | +18.97% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.71% | 3.03% | -0.32% |
Volatility
C300.L vs. CNAA.L - Volatility Comparison
Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C300.L) has a higher volatility of 9.32% compared to Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L) at 8.82%. This indicates that C300.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CNAA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| C300.L | CNAA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.32% | 8.82% | +0.50% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 15.38% | 14.97% | +0.41% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.90% | 19.23% | +0.67% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.34% | 22.75% | -0.41% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.34% | 22.59% | -0.25% |
C300.L vs. CNAA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both C300.L and CNAA.L have an expense ratio of 0.35%.
Dividends
C300.L vs. CNAA.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither C300.L nor CNAA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.97, C300.L and CNAA.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
Both ETFs have the same 0.35% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
C300.L and CNAA.L have the same expense ratio: 0.35% per year.
C300.L tracks S&P China A 300 Index, while CNAA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Amundi.
Find the right allocation for C300.L and CNAA.L
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