PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
C300.L vs. HMCD.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility

C300.L vs. HMCD.L

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C300.L) and HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCD.L).

C300.L and HMCD.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. C300.L is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the S&P China A 300 Index. It was launched on May 5, 2022. HMCD.L is a passively managed fund by HSBC that tracks the performance of the MSCI China NR USD. It was launched on Jan 26, 2011. Both C300.L and HMCD.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

C300.L vs. HMCD.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 UCITS ETF (HMCD.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading graphics...

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

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
C300.L
Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc		0.48%33.78%14.79%-11.81%1.72%
HMCD.L
HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF		-8.19%31.58%18.68%-11.51%6.47%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, C300.L achieves a 0.48% return, which is significantly higher than HMCD.L's -8.19% return.

C300.L

1D
-0.03%
1M
-4.26%
YTD
0.48%
6M
3.94%
1Y
32.96%
3Y*
8.75%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

HMCD.L

1D
0.31%
1M
-6.55%
YTD
-8.19%
6M
-14.94%
1Y
4.39%
3Y*
6.45%
5Y*
-5.49%
10Y*
4.85%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc

HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF

Often compared with C300.L:
C300.L vs. SPDM.LC300.L vs. EMAS.LC300.L vs. XWTS.DEC300.L vs. GLDC300.L vs. CSKR.LC300.L vs. ACWD.LC300.L vs. ARKQ
Often compared with HMCD.L:
HMCD.L vs. HMCH.LHMCD.L vs. IDFX.LHMCD.L vs. FLXC.LHMCD.L vs. FXC.ASHMCD.L vs. FXIHMCD.L vs. CEBG.LHMCD.L vs. HMEF.L

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

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

C300.L
Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc
HMCD.L
HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF

Return for Risk

C300.L vs. HMCD.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: 8888
Overall Rank
C300.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
C300.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
C300.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8686
Omega Ratio Rank
C300.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
C300.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
Martin Ratio Rank
HMCD.L
HMCD.L Risk / Return Rank: 1616
Overall Rank
HMCD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1717
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HMCD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1717
Sortino Ratio Rank
HMCD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1717
Omega Ratio Rank
HMCD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1616
Calmar Ratio Rank
HMCD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1515
Martin Ratio Rank
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. HMCD.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 UCITS ETF (HMCD.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.LHMCD.LDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.84

0.20

+1.64

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.35

0.42

+1.94

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.05

+0.29

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

2.92

0.21

+2.70

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

13.28

0.54

+12.74

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. HMCD.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current C300.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.84, which is higher than the HMCD.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of C300.L and HMCD.L, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Loading graphics...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

C300.LHMCD.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.84

0.20

+1.64

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

—

-0.19

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.19

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.39

0.12

+0.28

Correlation

The correlation between C300.L and HMCD.L is 0.77, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

C300.L vs. HMCD.L - Dividend Comparison

C300.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while HMCD.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.18%.

TTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%0.00%0.00%0.00%
HMCD.L
HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF		2.18%2.25%2.20%2.08%1.95%1.31%0.86%1.59%1.46%0.75%2.07%2.95%

Drawdowns

C300.L vs. HMCD.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum C300.L drawdown since its inception was -31.77%, smaller than the maximum HMCD.L drawdown of -62.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for C300.L and HMCD.L.

Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators

C300.LHMCD.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-31.77%

-62.46%

+30.69%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.46%

-16.95%

+5.49%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-56.34%

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-62.46%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.76%

-35.69%

+29.93%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-14.63%

-24.19%

+9.56%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.49%

6.56%

-4.07%

Volatility

C300.L vs. HMCD.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C300.L) is 6.65%, while HSBC MSCI China UCITS ETF (HMCD.L) has a volatility of 7.12%. This indicates that C300.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HMCD.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading graphics...

Volatility by Period

C300.LHMCD.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.65%

7.12%

-0.47%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.01%

14.03%

-2.02%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.87%

22.20%

-4.33%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.13%

29.08%

-6.95%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.13%

26.09%

-3.96%