PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
C300.L vs. XCNA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility

Performance

C300.L vs. XCNA.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 Xtrackers MSCI China A ESG Screened Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCNA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading graphics...

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


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
C300.L
Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc
2.00%33.78%14.79%-11.81%-9.94%
XCNA.L
Xtrackers MSCI China A ESG Screened Swap UCITS ETF 1C
0.60%32.54%14.47%-12.47%11.73%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, C300.L achieves a 2.00% return, which is significantly higher than XCNA.L's 0.60% return.


C300.L

1D
1.51%
1M
-2.65%
YTD
2.00%
6M
5.11%
1Y
35.11%
3Y*
9.29%
5Y*
10Y*

XCNA.L

1D
1.41%
1M
-2.76%
YTD
0.60%
6M
3.59%
1Y
31.90%
3Y*
8.15%
5Y*
10Y*
*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.


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

C300.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than XCNA.L's 0.29% expense ratio.


Return for Risk

C300.L vs. XCNA.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: 9090
Overall Rank
C300.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8888
Sharpe Ratio Rank
C300.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
C300.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8787
Omega Ratio Rank
C300.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9292
Calmar Ratio Rank
C300.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9494
Martin Ratio Rank

XCNA.L
XCNA.L Risk / Return Rank: 8787
Overall Rank
XCNA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XCNA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
XCNA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8383
Omega Ratio Rank
XCNA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
XCNA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9292
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. XCNA.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 Xtrackers MSCI China A ESG Screened Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCNA.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.LXCNA.LDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.95

1.82

+0.13

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.48

2.33

+0.15

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.34

+0.02

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

3.51

3.25

+0.26

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

15.06

14.40

+0.66

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

The current C300.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.95, which is comparable to the XCNA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of C300.L and XCNA.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.LXCNA.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.95

1.82

+0.13

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.41

0.45

-0.04

Correlation

The correlation between C300.L and XCNA.L is 0.96, 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. XCNA.L - Dividend Comparison

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Drawdowns

C300.L vs. XCNA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum C300.L drawdown since its inception was -31.77%, roughly equal to the maximum XCNA.L drawdown of -32.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for C300.L and XCNA.L.


Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators


C300.LXCNA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-31.77%

-32.05%

+0.28%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.35%

-11.13%

-0.22%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.34%

-3.79%

-0.55%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-14.62%

-14.83%

+0.21%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.34%

2.22%

+0.12%

Volatility

C300.L vs. XCNA.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C300.L) has a higher volatility of 6.07% compared to Xtrackers MSCI China A ESG Screened Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XCNA.L) at 4.73%. This indicates that C300.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XCNA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading graphics...

Volatility by Period


C300.LXCNA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.07%

4.73%

+1.34%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.09%

11.15%

+0.94%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.91%

17.47%

+0.44%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.13%

24.61%

-2.48%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.13%

24.61%

-2.48%