PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
AFK vs. ILF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

AFK vs. ILF

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

AFK (VanEck Vectors Africa Index ETF) and ILF (iShares Latin American 40 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AFK is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the Dow Jones Africa Titans 50 Index, while ILF is a Latin America Equities fund tracking the S&P Latin America 40 (Net). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, AFK returned 5.25%/yr vs 7.78%/yr for ILF. Their 0.58 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. AFK charges 0.78%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for ILF.

Performance

AFK vs. ILF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Vectors Africa Index ETF (AFK) and iShares Latin American 40 ETF (ILF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AFK achieves a -2.32% return, which is significantly lower than ILF's 17.64% return. Over the past 10 years, AFK has underperformed ILF with an annualized return of 5.25%, while ILF has yielded a comparatively higher 7.78% annualized return.

AFK

1D
0.15%
1M
0.08%
6M
-6.31%
YTD
-2.32%
1Y
26.56%
3Y*
19.94%
5Y*
6.08%
10Y*
5.25%
ALL TIME*
-0.03%

ILF

1D
-0.03%
1M
4.99%
6M
1.31%
YTD
17.64%
1Y
48.11%
3Y*
14.00%
5Y*
11.24%
10Y*
7.78%
ALL TIME*
9.53%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

AFK

VanEck Vectors Africa Index ETF
$3.06M$2.15M$2.08M

ILF

iShares Latin American 40 ETF
$79.35M$71.98M$85.23M

AFK vs. ILF - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
AFK
VanEck Vectors Africa Index ETF		-2.32%74.71%12.10%-12.11%-17.31%3.00%4.26%9.90%-19.55%28.22%
ILF
iShares Latin American 40 ETF		17.64%52.65%-23.11%33.14%9.81%-13.59%-11.71%13.77%-6.85%26.33%

Correlation

The correlation between AFK and ILF is 0.62, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.62

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.52

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.54

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.53

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2008

0.58

The correlation between AFK and ILF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

AFK vs. ILF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
AFK
ILF

Basic Materials

34.5%
22.0%

Financial Services

33.3%
34.5%

Communication Services

11.3%
6.0%

Consumer Cyclical

7.8%
1.3%

Energy

6.9%
10.6%

Industrials

3.3%
9.6%

Consumer Defensive

1.9%
9.6%

Healthcare

0.6%
1.1%

Real Estate

0.3%
0.8%

Utilities

0.2%
4.7%

Technology

-

-

Basic Materials

AFK
34.5%
ILF
22.0%

Financial Services

AFK
33.3%
ILF
34.5%

Communication Services

AFK
11.3%
ILF
6.0%

Consumer Cyclical

AFK
7.8%
ILF
1.3%

Energy

AFK
6.9%
ILF
10.6%

Industrials

AFK
3.3%
ILF
9.6%

Consumer Defensive

AFK
1.9%
ILF
9.6%

Healthcare

AFK
0.6%
ILF
1.1%

Real Estate

AFK
0.3%
ILF
0.8%

Utilities

AFK
0.2%
ILF
4.7%

Technology

AFK

-

ILF

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

VanEck Vectors Africa Index ETF

iShares Latin American 40 ETF

Often compared with AFK:
AFK vs. EZAAFK vs. RDIVAFK vs. VOOAFK vs. FXAIXAFK vs. VTIAFK vs. SMHAFK vs. VT
Often compared with ILF:
ILF vs. EWZILF vs. FLLAILF vs. EWWILF vs. FLNILF vs. FLBRILF vs. EPUILF vs. VOO

Return for Risk

AFK vs. ILF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
AFK
AFK Risk / Return Rank: 3737
Overall Rank
AFK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4040
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AFK Sortino Ratio Rank: 3737
Sortino Ratio Rank
AFK Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
AFK Calmar Ratio Rank: 3838
Calmar Ratio Rank
AFK Martin Ratio Rank: 3232
Martin Ratio Rank
ILF
ILF Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
ILF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8888
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ILF Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
ILF Omega Ratio Rank: 8484
Omega Ratio Rank
ILF Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
ILF Martin Ratio Rank: 7272
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

AFK vs. ILF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Vectors Africa Index ETF (AFK) and iShares Latin American 40 ETF (ILF). 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.

AFKILFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.97
2.13

-1.16

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.38
2.78

-1.39

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.36

-0.17

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.34

3.42

-2.08

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.99

8.81

-5.82

AFK vs. ILF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AFK Sharpe Ratio is 0.97, which is lower than the ILF Sharpe Ratio of 2.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AFK and ILF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

AFK vs. ILF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AFK drawdown since its inception was -62.46%, smaller than the maximum ILF drawdown of -67.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AFK and ILF.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

AFKILFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-62.46%

-67.48%

+5.02%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-19.54%

-13.94%

-5.60%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.54%

-23.97%

+4.43%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-37.62%

-29.71%

-7.91%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-53.33%

-57.79%

+4.46%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-14.50%

-5.98%

-8.52%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-31.88%

-23.84%

-8.04%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.74%

5.40%

+3.34%

Volatility

AFK vs. ILF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Vectors Africa Index ETF (AFK) is 5.45%, while iShares Latin American 40 ETF (ILF) has a volatility of 6.14%. This indicates that AFK experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ILF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

AFKILFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.45%

6.14%

-0.69%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

23.20%

18.40%

+4.80%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

27.08%

22.44%

+4.64%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.45%

23.10%

-0.65%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.14%

28.26%

-6.12%

AFK vs. ILF - Expense Ratio Comparison

AFK has a 0.78% expense ratio, which is higher than ILF's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

AFK vs. ILF - Dividend Comparison

AFK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.04%, less than ILF's 3.34% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
AFK
VanEck Vectors Africa Index ETF		1.04%1.02%0.00%2.27%3.59%4.17%3.91%6.34%1.71%1.99%2.67%2.16%
ILF
iShares Latin American 40 ETF		3.34%4.39%7.44%4.61%12.72%8.47%1.88%3.09%3.12%1.80%1.59%3.25%

Frequently Asked Questions

AFK and ILF have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ILF has higher volatility (6.14%) compared to AFK (5.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AFK dropped -62.46% vs ILF's -67.48%.

On 10-year performance, ILF leads with 7.78% vs 5.25% for AFK. On fees, ILF is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, AFK has been the lower-risk option at 5.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, ILF has performed better with a 7.78% return vs 5.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ILF is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.78% for AFK.

ILF has the higher dividend yield at 3.34%, compared with 1.04% for AFK.

AFK is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while ILF is Latin America Equities. AFK tracks Dow Jones Africa Titans 50 Index, while ILF tracks S&P Latin America 40 (Net). They also come from different issuers: VanEck and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.78% for AFK and 0.47% for ILF.

ILF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 vs 0.97), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for AFK and ILF

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