CNEW.L vs. C300.L
CNEW.L (VanEck New China UCITS ETF) and C300.L (Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) are both China Equities funds - CNEW.L tracks the MarketGrader New China Screened Index while C300.L tracks the S&P China A 300 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CNEW.L returned 1.29%/yr vs 15.49%/yr for C300.L. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CNEW.L charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for C300.L.
Performance
CNEW.L vs. C300.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CNEW.L achieves a -6.01% return, which is significantly lower than C300.L's 12.15% return.
CNEW.L
- 1D
- 2.09%
- 1M
- -1.23%
- 6M
- -10.84%
- YTD
- -6.01%
- 1Y
- 1.38%
- 3Y*
- 1.29%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
C300.L
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- -1.79%
- 6M
- 9.28%
- YTD
- 12.15%
- 1Y
- 38.21%
- 3Y*
- 15.49%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CNEW.L vs. C300.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNEW.L VanEck New China UCITS ETF | -6.01% | 23.92% | -0.36% | -9.27% | 1.66% |
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 CNEW.L and C300.L is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.82 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.85 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 9, 2022 | 0.86 |
The correlation between CNEW.L and C300.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.86 - 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
CNEW.L vs. C300.L — Risk / Return Rank
CNEW.L
C300.L
CNEW.L vs. C300.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck New China UCITS ETF (CNEW.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.
| CNEW.L | C300.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.86 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.47 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.03 | 1.34 | -0.32 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.08 | 5.02 | -4.94 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.18 | 14.57 | -14.39 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CNEW.L vs. C300.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CNEW.L drawdown since its inception was -46.53%, 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 CNEW.L and C300.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CNEW.L | C300.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -46.53% | -31.77% | -14.76% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.41% | -7.64% | -8.77% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -28.03% | -28.06% | +0.03% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.46% | -4.93% | -19.53% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -26.53% | -13.81% | -12.72% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.75% | 2.63% | +5.12% |
Volatility
CNEW.L vs. C300.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for VanEck New China UCITS ETF (CNEW.L) is 5.71%, while Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C300.L) has a volatility of 9.15%. This indicates that CNEW.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than C300.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CNEW.L | C300.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.71% | 9.15% | -3.44% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.83% | 15.26% | -2.43% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.60% | 19.76% | -2.16% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 25.24% | 22.34% | +2.90% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.24% | 22.34% | +2.90% |
CNEW.L vs. C300.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CNEW.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than C300.L's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
CNEW.L vs. C300.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither CNEW.L nor C300.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
CNEW.L and C300.L have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, C300.L is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
C300.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CNEW.L.
CNEW.L tracks MarketGrader New China Screened Index, while C300.L tracks S&P China A 300 Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for CNEW.L and 0.35% for C300.L.
Find the right allocation for CNEW.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