C300.L vs. X7PP.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

C300.L (Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) and X7PP.L (Invesco European Banks Sector UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - C300.L is a China Equities fund tracking the S&P China A 300 Index, while X7PP.L is a Financials Equities fund tracking the MSCI World/Financials NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, C300.L returned 15.49%/yr vs 45.97%/yr for X7PP.L. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. C300.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for X7PP.L.

Performance

C300.L vs. X7PP.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 Invesco European Banks Sector UCITS ETF (X7PP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

C300.L is traded in USD, while X7PP.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the X7PP.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 12.15% return, which is significantly lower than X7PP.L's 15.00% return.

C300.L

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -1.79%
• 6M: 9.28%
• YTD: 12.15%
• 1Y: 38.21%
• 3Y*: 15.49%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

X7PP.L

• 1D: 0.39%
• 1M: 5.30%
• 6M: 12.54%
• YTD: 15.00%
• 1Y: 51.53%
• 3Y*: 45.97%
• 5Y*: 31.35%
• 10Y*: 16.80%

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

C300.L vs. X7PP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
C300.L Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc	12.15%	33.78%	14.79%	-11.81%	1.72%
X7PP.L Invesco European Banks Sector UCITS ETF	15.00%	101.94%	24.95%	29.78%	16.45%

Correlation

The correlation between C300.L and X7PP.L is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.32
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 9, 2022	0.34

Return for Risk

C300.L vs. X7PP.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: 81
C300.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
C300.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
C300.L Omega Ratio Rank: 72
C300.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
C300.L Martin Ratio Rank: 87

X7PP.L

X7PP.L Risk / Return Rank: 80
X7PP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
X7PP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
X7PP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 81
X7PP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
X7PP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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. X7PP.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 Invesco European Banks Sector UCITS ETF (X7PP.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	X7PP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.94	2.16	-0.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.70	2.87	-0.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.36	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.02	2.83	+2.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.57	8.95	+5.62

C300.L vs. X7PP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current C300.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.94, which is comparable to the X7PP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of C300.L and X7PP.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.

Drawdowns

C300.L vs. X7PP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum C300.L drawdown since its inception was -31.77%, smaller than the maximum X7PP.L drawdown of -62.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for C300.L and X7PP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	C300.L	X7PP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.77%	-62.74%	+30.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.64%	-18.12%	+10.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.06%	-19.96%	-8.10%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-38.99%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-62.18%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.93%	-0.78%	-4.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.81%	-22.11%	+8.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.63%	5.74%	-3.11%

Volatility

C300.L vs. X7PP.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C300.L) has a higher volatility of 9.15% compared to Invesco European Banks Sector UCITS ETF (X7PP.L) at 5.83%. This indicates that C300.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than X7PP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	C300.L	X7PP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.15%	5.83%	+3.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.26%	20.31%	-5.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.76%	23.81%	-4.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.34%	26.31%	-3.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.34%	26.46%	-4.12%

C300.L vs. X7PP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

C300.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than X7PP.L's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

C300.L vs. X7PP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither C300.L nor X7PP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both C300.L and X7PP.L in my portfolio?

C300.L and X7PP.L have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, C300.L or X7PP.L?

On fees, X7PP.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, C300.L or X7PP.L?

X7PP.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for C300.L.

What is the main difference between C300.L and X7PP.L?

C300.L is categorized as China Equities, while X7PP.L is Financials Equities. C300.L tracks S&P China A 300 Index, while X7PP.L tracks MSCI World/Financials NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for C300.L and 0.20% for X7PP.L.