C300.L vs. XLKS.L

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

C300.L (Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) and XLKS.L (Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - C300.L is a China Equities fund tracking the S&P China A 300 Index, while XLKS.L is a Technology Equities fund tracking the S&P® Select Sector Capped 20% Technology Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, C300.L returned 17.77%/yr vs 33.08%/yr for XLKS.L. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. C300.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for XLKS.L.

Performance

C300.L vs. XLKS.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 Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc (XLKS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, C300.L achieves a 14.45% return, which is significantly lower than XLKS.L's 15.55% return.

C300.L

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -0.02%
• YTD: 14.45%
• 6M: 14.93%
• 1Y: 44.61%
• 3Y*: 17.77%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

XLKS.L

• 1D: -1.44%
• 1M: -3.67%
• YTD: 15.55%
• 6M: 15.20%
• 1Y: 36.78%
• 3Y*: 33.08%
• 5Y*: 22.60%
• 10Y*: 26.13%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
C300.L Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc	14.45%	33.78%	14.79%	-11.81%	1.72%
XLKS.L Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc	15.55%	24.23%	41.72%	60.64%	-12.26%

Correlation

The correlation between C300.L and XLKS.L is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 9, 2022	0.24

The correlation between C300.L and XLKS.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.20 (3 years) to 0.34 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

C300.L vs. XLKS.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: 89
C300.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
C300.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
C300.L Omega Ratio Rank: 84
C300.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
C300.L Martin Ratio Rank: 91

XLKS.L

XLKS.L Risk / Return Rank: 52
XLKS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
XLKS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
XLKS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 53
XLKS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
XLKS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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. XLKS.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 Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc (XLKS.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	XLKS.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.48	1.72	+0.76
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.39	2.36	+1.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.29	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.56	2.15	+4.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.76	6.14	+12.63

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

The current C300.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.48, which is higher than the XLKS.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of C300.L and XLKS.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. XLKS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum C300.L drawdown since its inception was -31.77%, smaller than the maximum XLKS.L drawdown of -34.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for C300.L and XLKS.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	C300.L	XLKS.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.77%	-34.26%	+2.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.83%	-16.99%	+10.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.06%	-26.97%	-1.09%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-34.26%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.26%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.98%	-9.40%	+6.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.94%	-5.13%	-8.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.38%	5.98%	-3.60%

Volatility

C300.L vs. XLKS.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C300.L) is 6.55%, while Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc (XLKS.L) has a volatility of 8.83%. This indicates that C300.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XLKS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	C300.L	XLKS.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.55%	8.83%	-2.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.18%	16.92%	-3.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.10%	21.27%	-3.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.13%	24.00%	-1.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.13%	22.13%	0.00%

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

C300.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than XLKS.L's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

C300.L vs. XLKS.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

C300.L and XLKS.L have a correlation of 0.34, 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 XLKS.L?

On fees, XLKS.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

XLKS.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for C300.L.

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

C300.L is categorized as China Equities, while XLKS.L is Technology Equities. C300.L tracks S&P China A 300 Index, while XLKS.L tracks S&P® Select Sector Capped 20% Technology Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for C300.L and 0.14% for XLKS.L.