HMCA.L vs. C300.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

HMCA.L (HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF) and C300.L (Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) are both China Equities funds - HMCA.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY while C300.L tracks the S&P China A 300 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, HMCA.L returned 8.50%/yr vs 13.94%/yr for C300.L. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. HMCA.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for C300.L.

Performance

HMCA.L vs. C300.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L) and Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C300.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

HMCA.L is traded in GBP, while C300.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the C300.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HMCA.L achieves a 8.77% return, which is significantly lower than C300.L's 15.06% return.

HMCA.L

• 1D: -0.53%
• 1M: 1.89%
• YTD: 8.77%
• 6M: 11.73%
• 1Y: 37.20%
• 3Y*: 8.50%
• 5Y*: 0.05%
• 10Y*: —

C300.L

• 1D: -0.55%
• 1M: 4.41%
• YTD: 15.06%
• 6M: 18.59%
• 1Y: 51.03%
• 3Y*: 13.94%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

HMCA.L vs. C300.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
HMCA.L HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF	8.77%	17.38%	13.48%	-18.58%	4.30%
C300.L Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc	15.06%	24.25%	16.79%	-16.21%	3.69%

Correlation

The correlation between HMCA.L and C300.L is 0.92, 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	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 10, 2022	0.92

The correlation between HMCA.L and C300.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

HMCA.L vs. C300.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

HMCA.L

HMCA.L Risk / Return Rank: 78
HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
HMCA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
HMCA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 73
HMCA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
HMCA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 79

C300.L

C300.L Risk / Return Rank: 89
C300.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
C300.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
C300.L Omega Ratio Rank: 85
C300.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
C300.L Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

HMCA.L vs. C300.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.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.

	HMCA.L	C300.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.42	2.98	-0.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.23	3.88	-0.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.53	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.29	7.50	-2.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.02	22.25	-7.22
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

HMCA.L vs. C300.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HMCA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.42, which is comparable to the C300.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HMCA.L and C300.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	HMCA.L	C300.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.42	2.98	-0.56
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.00	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.28	0.45	-0.17

Drawdowns

HMCA.L vs. C300.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HMCA.L drawdown since its inception was -44.23%, which is greater than C300.L's maximum drawdown of -34.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMCA.L and C300.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	HMCA.L	C300.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.23%	-34.94%	-9.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.00%	-6.77%	-0.23%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.19%	-26.04%	-0.15%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.62%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.21%	-0.88%	-9.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.96%	-15.41%	-2.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.47%	2.29%	+0.18%

Volatility

HMCA.L vs. C300.L - Volatility Comparison

HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF (HMCA.L) and Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C300.L) have volatilities of 5.46% and 5.67%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	HMCA.L	C300.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.46%	5.67%	-0.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.35%	12.24%	-1.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.33%	17.06%	-1.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.22%	21.19%	+0.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.88%	21.19%	+1.69%

HMCA.L vs. C300.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

HMCA.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than C300.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

HMCA.L vs. C300.L - Dividend Comparison

HMCA.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.68%, while C300.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
C300.L Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
HMCA.L HSBC MSCI CHINA A UCITS ETF	1.68%	1.76%	1.97%	2.20%	1.76%	1.09%	0.88%	1.78%	0.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HMCA.L and C300.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, HMCA.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.

Which ETF is better, HMCA.L or C300.L?

On fees, HMCA.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, HMCA.L or C300.L?

HMCA.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for C300.L.

What is the main difference between HMCA.L and C300.L?

HMCA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while C300.L tracks S&P China A 300 Index. They also come from different issuers: HSBC and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for HMCA.L and 0.35% for C300.L.