CNAA.L vs. C500.L
Compare and contrast key facts about Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L) and Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C500.L).
CNAA.L and C500.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CNAA.L is a passively managed fund by Amundi that tracks the performance of the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. It was launched on Aug 28, 2014. 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. Both CNAA.L and C500.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
CNAA.L vs. C500.L - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
CNAA.L vs. C500.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNAA.L Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR | -0.46% | 26.13% | 10.92% | -14.20% | -10.88% |
C500.L Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc | 5.88% | 46.93% | 20.08% | -11.13% | -7.65% |
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CNAA.L achieves a -0.46% return, which is significantly lower than C500.L's 5.88% return.
CNAA.L
- 1D
- 1.30%
- 1M
- -4.51%
- YTD
- -0.46%
- 6M
- 1.46%
- 1Y
- 25.36%
- 3Y*
- 4.57%
- 5Y*
- -1.26%
- 10Y*
- 3.93%
C500.L
- 1D
- 1.50%
- 1M
- -7.91%
- YTD
- 5.88%
- 6M
- 11.63%
- 1Y
- 50.31%
- 3Y*
- 15.25%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
CNAA.L vs. C500.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both CNAA.L and C500.L have an expense ratio of 0.35%.
Return for Risk
CNAA.L vs. C500.L — Risk / Return Rank
CNAA.L
C500.L
CNAA.L vs. C500.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L) and Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C500.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.
| CNAA.L | C500.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.44 | 2.17 | -0.73 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.90 | 2.68 | -0.77 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.28 | 1.39 | -0.11 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.63 | 2.86 | -0.24 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.86 | 12.08 | -2.21 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CNAA.L | C500.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.44 | 2.17 | -0.73 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.06 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.18 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.19 | 0.74 | -0.55 |
Correlation
The correlation between CNAA.L and C500.L is 0.46, 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
CNAA.L vs. C500.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither CNAA.L nor C500.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Drawdowns
CNAA.L vs. C500.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CNAA.L drawdown since its inception was -56.07%, which is greater than C500.L's maximum drawdown of -30.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNAA.L and C500.L.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| CNAA.L | C500.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -56.07% | -30.23% | -25.84% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.00% | -14.14% | +3.14% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -44.82% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -49.66% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -21.61% | -9.27% | -12.34% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -33.29% | -7.78% | -25.51% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.58% | 3.74% | -1.16% |
Volatility
CNAA.L vs. C500.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Lyxor Fortune SG UCITS MSCI China A DR (CNAA.L) is 4.85%, while Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C500.L) has a volatility of 7.54%. This indicates that CNAA.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than C500.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| CNAA.L | C500.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.85% | 7.54% | -2.69% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.40% | 16.24% | -4.84% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.52% | 24.11% | -6.59% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.36% | 40.23% | -17.87% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.53% | 40.23% | -17.70% |