CEMA.L vs. C300.L
CEMA.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc) and C300.L (Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - CEMA.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM Asia Index Net, while C300.L is a China Equities fund tracking the S&P China A 300 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CEMA.L returned 21.86%/yr vs 15.49%/yr for C300.L. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CEMA.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for C300.L.
Performance
CEMA.L vs. C300.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CEMA.L achieves a 22.45% return, which is significantly higher than C300.L's 12.15% return.
CEMA.L
- 1D
- -0.48%
- 1M
- -7.06%
- 6M
- 16.81%
- YTD
- 22.45%
- 1Y
- 40.02%
- 3Y*
- 21.86%
- 5Y*
- 7.43%
- 10Y*
- 10.13%
C300.L
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- -1.79%
- 6M
- 9.28%
- YTD
- 12.15%
- 1Y
- 38.21%
- 3Y*
- 15.49%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CEMA.L vs. C300.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEMA.L iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc | 22.45% | 33.97% | 12.43% | 6.65% | -4.67% |
C300.L Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc | 12.15% | 33.78% | 14.79% | -11.81% | 1.72% |
Correlation
The correlation between CEMA.L and C300.L is 0.62, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.62 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.61 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 9, 2022 | 0.65 |
The correlation between CEMA.L and C300.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
CEMA.L vs. C300.L — Risk / Return Rank
CEMA.L
C300.L
CEMA.L vs. C300.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) and Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C300.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.
| CEMA.L | C300.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.27 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.42 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.31 | 1.34 | -0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.89 | 5.02 | -2.13 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.20 | 14.57 | -5.37 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CEMA.L vs. C300.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CEMA.L drawdown since its inception was -45.51%, which is greater than C300.L's maximum drawdown of -31.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEMA.L and C300.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CEMA.L | C300.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -45.51% | -31.77% | -13.74% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.77% | -7.64% | -6.13% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.95% | -28.06% | +8.11% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -38.96% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -45.51% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -9.59% | -4.93% | -4.66% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -14.52% | -13.81% | -0.71% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.34% | 2.63% | +1.71% |
Volatility
CEMA.L vs. C300.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) has a higher volatility of 10.19% compared to Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C300.L) at 9.15%. This indicates that CEMA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than C300.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CEMA.L | C300.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.19% | 9.15% | +1.04% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 21.60% | 15.26% | +6.34% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.77% | 19.76% | +4.01% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.87% | 22.34% | -1.47% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.15% | 22.34% | -2.19% |
CEMA.L vs. C300.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CEMA.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than C300.L's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
CEMA.L vs. C300.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither CEMA.L nor C300.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
CEMA.L and C300.L have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CEMA.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CEMA.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for C300.L.
CEMA.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while C300.L is China Equities. CEMA.L tracks MSCI EM Asia Index Net, while C300.L tracks S&P China A 300 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for CEMA.L and 0.35% for C300.L.
Find the right allocation for CEMA.L and C300.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