HMAF.L vs. C500.L

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

HMAF.L (HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD) and C500.L (Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - HMAF.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, 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, HMAF.L returned 23.01%/yr vs 2.27%/yr for C500.L. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HMAF.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for C500.L.

Performance

HMAF.L vs. C500.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (HMAF.L) and Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C500.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

HMAF.L is traded in GBP, while C500.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the C500.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HMAF.L achieves a 26.04% return, which is significantly higher than C500.L's -0.46% return.

HMAF.L

• 1D: -1.44%
• 1M: -7.75%
• 6M: 16.30%
• YTD: 26.04%
• 1Y: 47.89%
• 3Y*: 23.01%
• 5Y*: 7.78%
• 10Y*: 9.74%

C500.L

• 1D: -1.09%
• 1M: -0.79%
• 6M: -1.14%
• YTD: -0.46%
• 1Y: -0.87%
• 3Y*: 2.27%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

HMAF.L vs. C500.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
HMAF.L HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD	26.04%	31.76%	13.79%	-3.80%	-2.26%
C500.L Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc	-0.46%	-0.64%	14.46%	-13.60%	13.41%

Correlation

The correlation between HMAF.L and C500.L is -0.10, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.10
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 9, 2022	0.42

The correlation between HMAF.L and C500.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.10 (1 year) to 0.42 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

HMAF.L vs. C500.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

HMAF.L

HMAF.L Risk / Return Rank: 80
HMAF.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
HMAF.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
HMAF.L Omega Ratio Rank: 81
HMAF.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
HMAF.L Martin Ratio Rank: 78

C500.L

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

HMAF.L vs. C500.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (HMAF.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.

	HMAF.L	C500.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.12	-0.17	+2.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.69	-0.19	+2.88
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	0.98	+0.40
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.81	-0.19	+4.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.67	-0.41	+12.08

HMAF.L vs. C500.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HMAF.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.12, which is higher than the C500.L Sharpe Ratio of -0.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HMAF.L and C500.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

HMAF.L vs. C500.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HMAF.L drawdown since its inception was -53.81%, which is greater than C500.L's maximum drawdown of -38.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMAF.L and C500.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	HMAF.L	C500.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.81%	-38.52%	-15.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.50%	-5.98%	-6.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.87%	-26.03%	-0.84%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.43%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.58%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.50%	-14.83%	+2.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.26%	-15.85%	-6.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.09%	2.71%	+1.38%

Volatility

HMAF.L vs. C500.L - Volatility Comparison

HSBC MSCI AC Far East ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (HMAF.L) has a higher volatility of 11.07% compared to Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C500.L) at 2.05%. This indicates that HMAF.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.

Volatility by Period

	HMAF.L	C500.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.07%	2.05%	+9.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.04%	5.10%	+14.94%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.45%	6.66%	+15.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.91%	22.87%	+1.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.50%	22.87%	-1.37%

HMAF.L vs. C500.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

HMAF.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than C500.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

HMAF.L vs. C500.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither HMAF.L nor C500.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HMAF.L and C500.L in my portfolio?

HMAF.L and C500.L have a correlation of -0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, HMAF.L or C500.L?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, HMAF.L or C500.L?

C500.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for HMAF.L.

What is the main difference between HMAF.L and C500.L?

HMAF.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while C500.L is China Equities. HMAF.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, while C500.L tracks S&P China A MidCap 500 Index. They also come from different issuers: HSBC and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for HMAF.L and 0.35% for C500.L.