BNKS.L vs. EMAS.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

BNKS.L (iShares S&P U.S. Banks) and EMAS.L (SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BNKS.L is a Financials Equities fund tracking the MSCI World/Financials NR USD, while EMAS.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BNKS.L returned 4.76%/yr vs 14.63%/yr for EMAS.L. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BNKS.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for EMAS.L.

Performance

BNKS.L vs. EMAS.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares S&P U.S. Banks (BNKS.L) and SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BNKS.L achieves a 3.61% return, which is significantly lower than EMAS.L's 81.34% return.

BNKS.L

• 1D: 3.49%
• 1M: 0.99%
• YTD: 3.61%
• 6M: 7.51%
• 1Y: 27.90%
• 3Y*: 26.30%
• 5Y*: 4.76%
• 10Y*: —

EMAS.L

• 1D: 38.80%
• 1M: 47.05%
• YTD: 81.34%
• 6M: 84.96%
• 1Y: 115.65%
• 3Y*: 39.49%
• 5Y*: 14.63%
• 10Y*: 14.81%

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

BNKS.L vs. EMAS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BNKS.L iShares S&P U.S. Banks	3.61%	20.45%	28.55%	-3.74%	-18.79%	39.71%	-12.04%	36.28%	-24.32%
EMAS.L SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF	81.34%	32.27%	10.97%	5.94%	-21.64%	-5.80%	27.51%	17.75%	-14.44%

Correlation

The correlation between BNKS.L and EMAS.L is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.26
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.32
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.37
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 24, 2018	0.35

The correlation between BNKS.L and EMAS.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.26 (1 year) to 0.37 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BNKS.L vs. EMAS.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BNKS.L	EMAS.L
Financial Services	100.0%	14.9%
Basic Materials	-	3.9%
Communication Services	-	7.1%
Consumer Cyclical	-	10.9%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.5%
Energy	-	2.9%
Healthcare	-	3.3%
Industrials	-	7.5%
Real Estate	-	0.7%
Technology	-	44.9%
Utilities	-	1.5%

Return for Risk

BNKS.L vs. EMAS.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

BNKS.L

BNKS.L Risk / Return Rank: 36
BNKS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
BNKS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
BNKS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 36
BNKS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
BNKS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 31

EMAS.L

EMAS.L Risk / Return Rank: 95
EMAS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
EMAS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
EMAS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 98
EMAS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
EMAS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

BNKS.L vs. EMAS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P U.S. Banks (BNKS.L) and SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.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.

	BNKS.L	EMAS.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.33	2.77	-1.43
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.96	6.94	-4.98
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.96	-0.73
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.65	8.86	-7.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.55	31.85	-27.30
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BNKS.L vs. EMAS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BNKS.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.33, which is lower than the EMAS.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BNKS.L and EMAS.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

	BNKS.L	EMAS.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.33	2.77	-1.43
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.17	0.55	-0.38
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.63	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.20	0.49	-0.29

Drawdowns

BNKS.L vs. EMAS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BNKS.L drawdown since its inception was -51.35%, which is greater than EMAS.L's maximum drawdown of -46.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BNKS.L and EMAS.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	BNKS.L	EMAS.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.35%	-46.26%	-5.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.88%	-13.50%	-3.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.47%	-19.56%	-8.91%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-50.15%	-41.52%	-8.63%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-46.26%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.58%	0.00%	-5.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.75%	-15.34%	-2.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.12%	3.77%	+2.35%

Volatility

BNKS.L vs. EMAS.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares S&P U.S. Banks (BNKS.L) is 6.48%, while SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L) has a volatility of 33.43%. This indicates that BNKS.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMAS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BNKS.L	EMAS.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.48%	33.43%	-26.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.85%	36.63%	-20.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.82%	43.26%	-22.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.66%	26.51%	+1.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.51%	23.35%	+8.16%

BNKS.L vs. EMAS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

BNKS.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than EMAS.L's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

BNKS.L vs. EMAS.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither BNKS.L nor EMAS.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BNKS.L and EMAS.L in my portfolio?

BNKS.L and EMAS.L have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, BNKS.L or EMAS.L?

On fees, BNKS.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, BNKS.L or EMAS.L?

BNKS.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for EMAS.L.

What is the main difference between BNKS.L and EMAS.L?

BNKS.L is categorized as Financials Equities, while EMAS.L is Asia Pacific Equities. BNKS.L tracks MSCI World/Financials NR USD, while EMAS.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for BNKS.L and 0.55% for EMAS.L.