PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
C500.L vs. HMCA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility

C500.L vs. HMCA.L

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C500.L) and HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L).

C500.L and HMCA.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. C500.L is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the S&P China A MidCap 500 Index. It was launched on May 5, 2022. HMCA.L is a passively managed fund by HSBC that tracks the performance of the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. It was launched on Jul 27, 2018. Both C500.L and HMCA.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

C500.L vs. HMCA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C500.L) and HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading graphics...

C500.L vs. HMCA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
C500.L
Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc		5.88%46.93%20.08%-11.13%-7.65%
HMCA.L
HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF		-0.54%26.23%11.59%-14.28%-11.25%
Different Trading Currencies

C500.L is traded in USD, while HMCA.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the HMCA.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, C500.L achieves a 5.88% return, which is significantly higher than HMCA.L's -0.54% return.

C500.L

1D
1.50%
1M
-7.91%
YTD
5.88%
6M
11.63%
1Y
50.31%
3Y*
15.25%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

HMCA.L

1D
1.08%
1M
-4.96%
YTD
-0.54%
6M
0.98%
1Y
25.66%
3Y*
4.86%
5Y*
-1.23%
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.

Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc

HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF

Often compared with C500.L:
C500.L vs. JRCE.LC500.L vs. HMCT.LC500.L vs. CEBG.LC500.L vs. CHIN.LC500.L vs. CNUA.LC500.L vs. CM5S.LC500.L vs. CNAA.L
Often compared with HMCA.L:
HMCA.L vs. BCHS.LHMCA.L vs. NUCG.LHMCA.L vs. HERG.LHMCA.L vs. UC04.LHMCA.L vs. LYPG.DEHMCA.L vs. CNYAHMCA.L vs. SPX5.L

C500.L vs. HMCA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

C500.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than HMCA.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

C500.L
Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc
HMCA.L
HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF

Return for Risk

C500.L vs. HMCA.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
C500.L
C500.L Risk / Return Rank: 8989
Overall Rank
C500.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9191
Sharpe Ratio Rank
C500.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9090
Sortino Ratio Rank
C500.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
C500.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8585
Calmar Ratio Rank
C500.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8888
Martin Ratio Rank
HMCA.L
HMCA.L Risk / Return Rank: 7474
Overall Rank
HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7272
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
HMCA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7272
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.

C500.L vs. HMCA.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 HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.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.

C500.LHMCA.LDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.17

1.48

+0.69

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.68

1.94

+0.73

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.39

1.27

+0.11

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

2.86

2.64

+0.22

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

12.08

10.18

+1.89

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

C500.L vs. HMCA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current C500.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.17, which is higher than the HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of C500.L and HMCA.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

C500.LHMCA.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.17

1.48

+0.69

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

—

-0.05

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.74

0.23

+0.51

Correlation

The correlation between C500.L and HMCA.L is 0.45, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

C500.L vs. HMCA.L - Dividend Comparison

C500.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while HMCA.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.85%.

TTM20252024202320222021202020192018
C500.L
Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
HMCA.L
HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF		1.85%1.76%1.97%2.20%1.76%1.09%0.88%1.78%0.29%

Drawdowns

C500.L vs. HMCA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum C500.L drawdown since its inception was -30.23%, smaller than the maximum HMCA.L drawdown of -49.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for C500.L and HMCA.L.

Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators

C500.LHMCA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-30.23%

-44.23%

+14.00%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.14%

-9.21%

-4.93%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-41.62%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-9.27%

-16.96%

+7.69%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.78%

-18.09%

+10.31%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.74%

2.72%

+1.02%

Volatility

C500.L vs. HMCA.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C500.L) has a higher volatility of 7.54% compared to HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L) at 4.55%. This indicates that C500.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HMCA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading graphics...

Volatility by Period

C500.LHMCA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.54%

4.55%

+2.99%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.24%

11.08%

+5.16%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

24.11%

17.25%

+6.86%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

40.23%

22.69%

+17.54%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

40.23%

24.04%

+16.19%