CNYA.L vs. C300.L
CNYA.L (iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and C300.L (Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) are both China Equities funds - CNYA.L tracks the MSCI China A Inclusion Index (Net) while C300.L tracks the S&P China A 300 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CNYA.L returned 9.63%/yr vs 15.49%/yr for C300.L. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. CNYA.L charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for C300.L.
Performance
CNYA.L vs. C300.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CNYA.L achieves a 4.12% return, which is significantly lower than C300.L's 12.15% return.
CNYA.L
- 1D
- -2.16%
- 1M
- -4.94%
- 6M
- 0.97%
- YTD
- 4.12%
- 1Y
- 25.16%
- 3Y*
- 9.63%
- 5Y*
- -1.29%
- 10Y*
- 5.34%
C300.L
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- -1.79%
- 6M
- 9.28%
- YTD
- 12.15%
- 1Y
- 38.21%
- 3Y*
- 15.49%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CNYA.L vs. C300.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNYA.L iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 4.12% | 26.26% | 11.19% | -14.20% | -0.21% |
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 CNYA.L and C300.L is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 9, 2022 | 0.96 |
The correlation between CNYA.L and C300.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.96 - 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
CNYA.L vs. C300.L — Risk / Return Rank
CNYA.L
C300.L
CNYA.L vs. C300.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CNYA.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.
| CNYA.L | C300.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.65 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.82 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.24 | 1.34 | -0.11 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.13 | 5.02 | -1.89 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.30 | 14.57 | -6.27 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CNYA.L vs. C300.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CNYA.L drawdown since its inception was -52.23%, 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 CNYA.L and C300.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CNYA.L | C300.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -52.23% | -31.77% | -20.46% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.00% | -7.64% | -0.36% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -27.99% | -28.06% | +0.07% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -44.56% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -49.31% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -17.02% | -4.93% | -12.09% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -32.14% | -13.81% | -18.33% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.02% | 2.63% | +0.39% |
Volatility
CNYA.L vs. C300.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CNYA.L) and Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C300.L) have volatilities of 8.85% and 9.15%, 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CNYA.L | C300.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.85% | 9.15% | -0.30% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 15.06% | 15.26% | -0.20% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.35% | 19.76% | -0.41% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.90% | 22.34% | +0.56% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.89% | 22.34% | +0.55% |
CNYA.L vs. C300.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CNYA.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than C300.L's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
CNYA.L vs. C300.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither CNYA.L nor C300.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.96, CNYA.L and C300.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
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 0.40% for CNYA.L.
CNYA.L tracks MSCI China A Inclusion 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: 0.40% for CNYA.L and 0.35% for C300.L.
Find the right allocation for CNYA.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