LGAG.L vs. C300.L

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

LGAG.L (L&G Asia Pacific ex Japan Equity UCITS ETF) and C300.L (Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - LGAG.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Pacific Ex Japan NR USD, while C300.L is a China Equities fund tracking the S&P China A 300 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LGAG.L returned 11.12%/yr vs 13.61%/yr for C300.L. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LGAG.L charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for C300.L.

Performance

LGAG.L vs. C300.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G Asia Pacific ex Japan Equity UCITS ETF (LGAG.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

LGAG.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

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with LGAG.L having a 9.68% return and C300.L slightly lower at 9.30%.

LGAG.L

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: -0.57%
• 6M: 6.15%
• YTD: 9.68%
• 1Y: 13.66%
• 3Y*: 11.12%
• 5Y*: 6.03%
• 10Y*: —

C300.L

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -6.37%
• 6M: 5.62%
• YTD: 9.30%
• 1Y: 33.14%
• 3Y*: 13.61%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
LGAG.L L&G Asia Pacific ex Japan Equity UCITS ETF	9.68%	12.56%	6.20%	-0.81%	2.89%
C300.L Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc	9.30%	24.25%	16.79%	-16.21%	3.69%

Correlation

The correlation between LGAG.L and C300.L is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.39
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 9, 2022	0.42

Return for Risk

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

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

LGAG.L

LGAG.L Risk / Return Rank: 43
LGAG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
LGAG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
LGAG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 41
LGAG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
LGAG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 40

C300.L

C300.L Risk / Return Rank: 75
C300.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
C300.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
C300.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
C300.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
C300.L Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Asia Pacific ex Japan Equity UCITS ETF (LGAG.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.

	LGAG.L	C300.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.19	1.68	-0.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.79	2.32	-0.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.30	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.88	3.76	-1.88
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.93	11.75	-6.82

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

The current LGAG.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.19, which is comparable to the C300.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LGAG.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.

Drawdowns

LGAG.L vs. C300.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LGAG.L drawdown since its inception was -35.16%, roughly equal to the maximum C300.L drawdown of -34.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LGAG.L and C300.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	LGAG.L	C300.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.16%	-34.94%	-0.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.24%	-8.85%	+1.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.32%	-26.04%	+4.72%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.32%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.29%	-8.85%	+6.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.23%	-15.08%	+5.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.77%	2.83%	-0.06%

Volatility

LGAG.L vs. C300.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for L&G Asia Pacific ex Japan Equity UCITS ETF (LGAG.L) is 2.65%, while Invesco S&P China A 300 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (C300.L) has a volatility of 9.13%. This indicates that LGAG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than C300.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LGAG.L	C300.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.65%	9.13%	-6.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.17%	15.25%	-6.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.51%	19.84%	-8.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.44%	21.49%	-2.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.08%	21.49%	-0.41%

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

LGAG.L has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than C300.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

LGAG.L vs. C300.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

LGAG.L and C300.L have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

On fees, LGAG.L is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

LGAG.L is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for C300.L.

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

LGAG.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while C300.L is China Equities. LGAG.L tracks MSCI Pacific Ex Japan NR USD, while C300.L tracks S&P China A 300 Index. They also come from different issuers: Legal & General and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for LGAG.L and 0.35% for C300.L.