EMAD.L vs. C500.L
EMAD.L (State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and C500.L (Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - EMAD.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Asia Index, while C500.L is a China Equities fund tracking the S&P China A MidCap 500 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMAD.L returned 20.83%/yr vs 3.42%/yr for C500.L. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMAD.L charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for C500.L.
Performance
EMAD.L vs. C500.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
EMAD.L
- 1D
- -1.54%
- 1M
- -8.90%
- 6M
- 14.74%
- YTD
- 21.59%
- 1Y
- 36.41%
- 3Y*
- 20.83%
- 5Y*
- 6.55%
- 10Y*
- 9.69%
C500.L
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.00%
- 6M
- 0.00%
- YTD
- 0.00%
- 1Y
- 0.00%
- 3Y*
- 3.42%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
EMAD.L vs. C500.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMAD.L State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 21.59% | 32.13% | 11.12% | 6.54% | -4.94% |
C500.L Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc | 0.00% | 6.99% | 12.50% | -9.06% | 11.25% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMAD.L and C500.L is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.41 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 9, 2022 | 0.48 |
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
EMAD.L vs. C500.L — Risk / Return Rank
EMAD.L
C500.L
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
EMAD.L vs. C500.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAD.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.
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.
| EMAD.L | C500.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.28 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.69 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.03 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EMAD.L vs. C500.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMAD.L drawdown since its inception was -46.17%, which is greater than C500.L's maximum drawdown of -35.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMAD.L and C500.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMAD.L | C500.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -46.17% | -35.90% | -10.27% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.38% | 0.00% | -13.38% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -20.03% | -27.05% | +7.02% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -39.17% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -46.17% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -11.48% | -11.28% | -0.20% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -14.72% | -14.01% | -0.71% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.50% | 0.00% | +4.50% |
Volatility
EMAD.L vs. C500.L - Volatility Comparison
State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAD.L) has a higher volatility of 9.84% compared to Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C500.L) at 0.00%. This indicates that EMAD.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than C500.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMAD.L | C500.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.84% | 0.00% | +9.84% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 21.14% | 0.00% | +21.14% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.53% | 0.00% | +23.53% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.80% | 23.51% | -2.71% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.15% | 23.51% | -3.36% |
EMAD.L vs. C500.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMAD.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than C500.L's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMAD.L vs. C500.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither EMAD.L nor C500.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
EMAD.L and C500.L have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, C500.L is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
C500.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for EMAD.L.
EMAD.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while C500.L is China Equities. EMAD.L tracks MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Asia Index, while C500.L tracks S&P China A MidCap 500 Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for EMAD.L and 0.35% for C500.L.
Find the right allocation for EMAD.L and C500.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