C500.L vs. CPJ1.L
C500.L (Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) and CPJ1.L (iShares VII plc - iShares Core MSCI Pac ex-Jpn ETF USD Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - C500.L is a China Equities fund tracking the S&P China A MidCap 500 Index, while CPJ1.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Pacific Ex Japan NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, C500.L returned 3.42%/yr vs 12.98%/yr for CPJ1.L. At a 0.38 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. C500.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CPJ1.L.
Performance
C500.L vs. CPJ1.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
C500.L is traded in USD, while CPJ1.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the CPJ1.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
C500.L
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.00%
- 6M
- 0.00%
- YTD
- 0.00%
- 1Y
- 0.00%
- 3Y*
- 3.42%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CPJ1.L
- 1D
- 1.11%
- 1M
- 2.65%
- 6M
- 9.82%
- YTD
- 11.54%
- 1Y
- 17.40%
- 3Y*
- 12.98%
- 5Y*
- 6.23%
- 10Y*
- 7.69%
C500.L vs. CPJ1.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C500.L Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc | 0.00% | 6.99% | 12.50% | -9.06% | 11.25% |
CPJ1.L iShares VII plc - iShares Core MSCI Pac ex-Jpn ETF USD Acc | 11.54% | 20.50% | 5.11% | 5.44% | -0.14% |
Correlation
The correlation between C500.L and CPJ1.L is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.31 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 9, 2022 | 0.38 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
C500.L vs. CPJ1.L — Risk / Return Rank
C500.L
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
CPJ1.L
C500.L vs. CPJ1.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C500.L) and iShares VII plc - iShares Core MSCI Pac ex-Jpn ETF USD Acc (CPJ1.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.
| C500.L | CPJ1.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.23 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 1.97 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 5.48 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
C500.L vs. CPJ1.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum C500.L drawdown since its inception was -35.90%, smaller than the maximum CPJ1.L drawdown of -38.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for C500.L and CPJ1.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| C500.L | CPJ1.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -35.90% | -38.55% | +2.65% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | 0.00% | -8.80% | +8.80% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -27.05% | -20.09% | -6.96% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -24.37% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -38.55% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -11.28% | -0.74% | -10.54% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -14.01% | -8.63% | -5.38% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.00% | 3.17% | -3.17% |
Volatility
C500.L vs. CPJ1.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C500.L) is 0.00%, while iShares VII plc - iShares Core MSCI Pac ex-Jpn ETF USD Acc (CPJ1.L) has a volatility of 2.97%. This indicates that C500.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CPJ1.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| C500.L | CPJ1.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.00% | 2.97% | -2.97% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.00% | 11.41% | -11.41% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.00% | 13.70% | -13.70% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 23.51% | 21.65% | +1.86% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.51% | 20.02% | +3.49% |
C500.L vs. CPJ1.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
C500.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than CPJ1.L's 0.20% expense ratio.
Dividends
C500.L vs. CPJ1.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither C500.L nor CPJ1.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
C500.L and CPJ1.L have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CPJ1.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CPJ1.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for C500.L.
C500.L is categorized as China Equities, while CPJ1.L is Asia Pacific Equities. C500.L tracks S&P China A MidCap 500 Index, while CPJ1.L tracks MSCI Pacific Ex Japan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for C500.L and 0.20% for CPJ1.L.
Find the right allocation for C500.L and CPJ1.L
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer