CA3S.L vs. SGLP.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CA3S.L (Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) and SGLP.L (Invesco Physical Gold A) are both exchange-traded funds - CA3S.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while SGLP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CA3S.L returned 13.85%/yr vs 27.94%/yr for SGLP.L. At a 0.12 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CA3S.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for SGLP.L.

Performance

CA3S.L vs. SGLP.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 (CA3S.L) and Invesco Physical Gold A (SGLP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CA3S.L achieves a 15.44% return, which is significantly higher than SGLP.L's 3.24% return.

CA3S.L

• 1D: 0.33%
• 1M: 5.31%
• YTD: 15.44%
• 6M: 19.58%
• 1Y: 52.73%
• 3Y*: 13.85%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

SGLP.L

• 1D: -1.17%
• 1M: -2.86%
• YTD: 3.24%
• 6M: 4.38%
• 1Y: 33.15%
• 3Y*: 27.94%
• 5Y*: 19.70%
• 10Y*: 14.29%

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

CA3S.L vs. SGLP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CA3S.L Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc	15.44%	24.66%	16.66%	-16.63%	3.94%
SGLP.L Invesco Physical Gold A	3.24%	53.60%	28.14%	7.26%	-0.00%

Correlation

The correlation between CA3S.L and SGLP.L is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 10, 2022	0.12

The correlation between CA3S.L and SGLP.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.09 (3 years) to 0.24 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

CA3S.L vs. SGLP.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CA3S.L

CA3S.L Risk / Return Rank: 92
CA3S.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
CA3S.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
CA3S.L Omega Ratio Rank: 90
CA3S.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
CA3S.L Martin Ratio Rank: 93

SGLP.L

SGLP.L Risk / Return Rank: 38
SGLP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
SGLP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
SGLP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 44
SGLP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
SGLP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 33

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.

CA3S.L vs. SGLP.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 (CA3S.L) and Invesco Physical Gold A (SGLP.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.

	CA3S.L	SGLP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.33	1.43	+1.89
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.23	1.87	+2.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	1.29	+0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.43	1.84	+6.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	24.49	5.03	+19.47
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CA3S.L vs. SGLP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CA3S.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.33, which is higher than the SGLP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CA3S.L and SGLP.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CA3S.L	SGLP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.33	1.43	+1.89
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.22	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.91	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.46	0.53	-0.07

Drawdowns

CA3S.L vs. SGLP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CA3S.L drawdown since its inception was -35.12%, smaller than the maximum SGLP.L drawdown of -38.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CA3S.L and SGLP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CA3S.L	SGLP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.12%	-38.83%	+3.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.23%	-17.89%	+11.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.15%	-17.89%	-8.26%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.89%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-22.34%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.47%	-16.55%	+16.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.53%	-13.37%	-2.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.15%	6.58%	-4.43%

Volatility

CA3S.L vs. SGLP.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (CA3S.L) and Invesco Physical Gold A (SGLP.L) have volatilities of 5.32% and 5.09%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CA3S.L	SGLP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.32%	5.09%	+0.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.61%	19.90%	-9.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.80%	23.02%	-7.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.99%	16.11%	+4.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.99%	15.72%	+5.27%

CA3S.L vs. SGLP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CA3S.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than SGLP.L's 0.12% expense ratio.

Dividends

CA3S.L vs. SGLP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CA3S.L nor SGLP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CA3S.L and SGLP.L in my portfolio?

CA3S.L and SGLP.L have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CA3S.L or SGLP.L?

On fees, SGLP.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CA3S.L or SGLP.L?

SGLP.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CA3S.L.

What is the main difference between CA3S.L and SGLP.L?

CA3S.L is categorized as China Equities, while SGLP.L is Precious Metals. CA3S.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while SGLP.L tracks Gold. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CA3S.L and 0.12% for SGLP.L.