LCCN.L vs. C300.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

LCCN.L (Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc) and C300.L (Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) are both China Equities funds - LCCN.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD while C300.L tracks the S&P China A 300 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LCCN.L returned 11.02%/yr vs 16.88%/yr for C300.L. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LCCN.L charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for C300.L.

Performance

LCCN.L vs. C300.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.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.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCCN.L achieves a -7.04% return, which is significantly lower than C300.L's 14.60% return.

LCCN.L

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: -2.64%
• YTD: -7.04%
• 6M: -8.41%
• 1Y: 5.00%
• 3Y*: 11.02%
• 5Y*: -4.89%
• 10Y*: —

C300.L

• 1D: -0.55%
• 1M: 3.46%
• YTD: 14.60%
• 6M: 19.42%
• 1Y: 49.58%
• 3Y*: 16.88%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
LCCN.L Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc	-7.04%	32.04%	19.37%	-11.61%	7.07%
C300.L Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc	14.60%	33.78%	14.79%	-11.81%	1.72%

Correlation

The correlation between LCCN.L and C300.L is 0.71, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.71
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 10, 2022	0.77

The correlation between LCCN.L and C300.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

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

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

LCCN.L

LCCN.L Risk / Return Rank: 13
LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
LCCN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
LCCN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 13
LCCN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
LCCN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.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.

	LCCN.L	C300.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.25	2.88	-2.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.50	3.90	-3.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.51	-0.45
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.29	7.23	-6.93
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.61	22.19	-21.58
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current LCCN.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.25, which is lower than the C300.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCCN.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

	LCCN.L	C300.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.25	2.88	-2.63
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.17	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.11	0.54	-0.42

Drawdowns

LCCN.L vs. C300.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCCN.L drawdown since its inception was -62.38%, 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 LCCN.L and C300.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCCN.L	C300.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.38%	-31.77%	-30.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.98%	-6.83%	-10.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.52%	-28.06%	+2.54%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-56.10%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-34.07%	-1.64%	-32.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.16%	-14.09%	-16.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.15%	2.23%	+5.92%

Volatility

LCCN.L vs. C300.L - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor MSCI China UCITS ETF - Acc (LCCN.L) has a higher volatility of 8.04% compared to Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C300.L) at 6.07%. This indicates that LCCN.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than C300.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCCN.L	C300.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.04%	6.07%	+1.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.66%	12.12%	+2.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.12%	17.15%	+2.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.33%	22.07%	+7.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.88%	22.07%	+5.81%

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

LCCN.L has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than C300.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCCN.L vs. C300.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither LCCN.L nor C300.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

LCCN.L and C300.L have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

On fees, LCCN.L is cheaper at 0.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

LCCN.L is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for C300.L.

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

LCCN.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while C300.L tracks S&P China A 300 Index. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for LCCN.L and 0.35% for C300.L.