C300.L vs. HMCA.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

C300.L (Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) and HMCA.L (HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds - C300.L tracks the S&P China A 300 Index while HMCA.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, C300.L returned 16.69%/yr vs 11.21%/yr for HMCA.L. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. C300.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for HMCA.L.

Performance

C300.L vs. HMCA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C300.L) and HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

C300.L is traded in USD, while HMCA.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the HMCA.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, C300.L achieves a 15.23% return, which is significantly higher than HMCA.L's 9.09% return.

C300.L

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 3.84%
• YTD: 15.23%
• 6M: 20.38%
• 1Y: 51.82%
• 3Y*: 16.69%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

HMCA.L

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: 1.70%
• YTD: 9.09%
• 6M: 13.08%
• 1Y: 37.74%
• 3Y*: 11.21%
• 5Y*: -0.89%
• 10Y*: —

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

C300.L vs. HMCA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
C300.L Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc	15.23%	33.78%	14.79%	-11.81%	1.72%
HMCA.L HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF	9.09%	26.23%	11.59%	-14.28%	2.23%

Correlation

The correlation between C300.L and HMCA.L is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 10, 2022	0.93

The correlation between C300.L and HMCA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

C300.L vs. HMCA.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

C300.L

C300.L Risk / Return Rank: 90
C300.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
C300.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
C300.L Omega Ratio Rank: 86
C300.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
C300.L Martin Ratio Rank: 92

HMCA.L

HMCA.L Risk / Return Rank: 79
HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
HMCA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
HMCA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 75
HMCA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
HMCA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

C300.L vs. HMCA.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 HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.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.

	C300.L	HMCA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.01	2.32	+0.69
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.04	3.16	+0.88
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.53	1.40	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.55	5.02	+2.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	23.22	14.95	+8.27
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

C300.L vs. HMCA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current C300.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.01, which is comparable to the HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of C300.L and HMCA.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	C300.L	HMCA.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.01	2.32	+0.69
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.04	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.54	0.28	+0.26

Drawdowns

C300.L vs. HMCA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum C300.L drawdown since its inception was -31.77%, smaller than the maximum HMCA.L drawdown of -49.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for C300.L and HMCA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	C300.L	HMCA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.77%	-49.15%	+17.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.83%	-7.49%	+0.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.06%	-28.26%	+0.20%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-44.46%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.09%	-12.55%	+11.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.10%	-21.69%	+7.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.23%	2.52%	-0.29%

Volatility

C300.L vs. HMCA.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C300.L) and HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L) have volatilities of 6.04% and 6.17%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	C300.L	HMCA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.04%	6.17%	-0.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.14%	11.24%	+0.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.14%	16.21%	+0.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.08%	22.71%	-0.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.08%	23.95%	-1.87%

C300.L vs. HMCA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

C300.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than HMCA.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

C300.L vs. HMCA.L - Dividend Comparison

C300.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while HMCA.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.67%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
C300.L Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
HMCA.L HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF	1.67%	1.76%	1.97%	2.20%	1.76%	1.09%	0.88%	1.78%	0.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both C300.L and HMCA.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, C300.L and HMCA.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.

Which ETF is better, C300.L or HMCA.L?

On fees, HMCA.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, C300.L or HMCA.L?

HMCA.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for C300.L.

What is the main difference between C300.L and HMCA.L?

C300.L tracks S&P China A 300 Index, while HMCA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and HSBC. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for C300.L and 0.30% for HMCA.L.