CARY vs. IEMG

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

CARY (Angel Oak Income ETF) and IEMG (iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CARY is a Multisector Bonds fund actively managed by Angel Oak, while IEMG is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index (USD) (Net). CARY is actively managed, while IEMG is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CARY returned 7.39%/yr vs 21.33%/yr for IEMG. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CARY charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for IEMG.

Performance

CARY vs. IEMG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Angel Oak Income ETF (CARY) and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CARY achieves a 2.01% return, which is significantly lower than IEMG's 22.84% return.

CARY

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.47%
• YTD: 2.01%
• 6M: 2.44%
• 1Y: 6.50%
• 3Y*: 7.39%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IEMG

• 1D: 0.61%
• 1M: 0.63%
• YTD: 22.84%
• 6M: 25.59%
• 1Y: 42.50%
• 3Y*: 21.33%
• 5Y*: 7.15%
• 10Y*: 10.42%

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

CARY vs. IEMG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CARY Angel Oak Income ETF	2.01%	7.54%	6.93%	8.70%	0.58%
IEMG iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF	22.84%	32.56%	6.50%	11.52%	5.89%

Correlation

The correlation between CARY and IEMG 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	0.17
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 8, 2022	0.15

Over the past year, CARY and IEMG have become more correlated (0.40) than their long-term average of 0.15, meaning their price movements have been converging.

CARY vs. IEMG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CARY	IEMG
Basic Materials	100.0%	6.9%
Financial Services	1.0%	18.4%
Communication Services	-	6.4%
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.5%
Consumer Defensive	-	3.3%
Energy	-	3.8%
Healthcare	-	3.7%
Industrials	-	9.0%
Real Estate	-	1.7%
Technology	-	35.0%
Utilities	-	2.2%

Return for Risk

CARY vs. IEMG — Risk / Return Rank

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

CARY

CARY Risk / Return Rank: 95
CARY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
CARY Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
CARY Omega Ratio Rank: 97
CARY Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
CARY Martin Ratio Rank: 93

IEMG

IEMG Risk / Return Rank: 73
IEMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
IEMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
IEMG Omega Ratio Rank: 76
IEMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
IEMG Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

CARY vs. IEMG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Angel Oak Income ETF (CARY) and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG). 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.

	CARY	IEMG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.66	2.03	+1.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.74	2.65	+3.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.81	1.39	+0.42
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.11	3.23	+1.88
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	22.04	11.89	+10.16

CARY vs. IEMG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CARY Sharpe Ratio is 3.66, which is higher than the IEMG Sharpe Ratio of 2.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CARY and IEMG, 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

CARY vs. IEMG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CARY drawdown since its inception was -1.96%, smaller than the maximum IEMG drawdown of -38.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CARY and IEMG.

Drawdown Indicators

	CARY	IEMG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-1.96%	-38.71%	+36.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.28%	-13.21%	+11.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-1.96%	-17.21%	+15.25%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.75%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-38.71%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-3.98%	+3.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.32%	-12.95%	+12.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.30%	3.59%	-3.29%

Volatility

CARY vs. IEMG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Angel Oak Income ETF (CARY) is 0.68%, while iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG) has a volatility of 10.60%. This indicates that CARY experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IEMG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CARY	IEMG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.68%	10.60%	-9.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.37%	18.89%	-17.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.80%	21.08%	-19.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.73%	18.73%	-16.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.73%	20.17%	-17.44%

CARY vs. IEMG - Expense Ratio Comparison

CARY has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than IEMG's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

CARY vs. IEMG - Dividend Comparison

CARY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.92%, more than IEMG's 2.24% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CARY Angel Oak Income ETF	5.92%	6.13%	6.10%	6.38%	0.48%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IEMG iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF	2.24%	2.75%	3.20%	2.89%	2.71%	3.06%	1.87%	3.15%	2.76%	2.35%	2.28%	2.53%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CARY and IEMG in my portfolio?

CARY and IEMG 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 is riskier, CARY or IEMG?

IEMG has higher volatility (10.60%) compared to CARY (0.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CARY dropped -1.96% vs IEMG's -38.71%.

Which ETF is better, CARY or IEMG?

On 3-year performance, IEMG leads with 21.33% vs 7.39% for CARY. On fees, IEMG is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, CARY has been the lower-risk option at 0.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CARY or IEMG?

Over the 3-year period, IEMG has performed better with a 21.33% return vs 7.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CARY or IEMG?

IEMG is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for CARY.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CARY or IEMG?

CARY has the higher dividend yield at 5.92%, compared with 2.24% for IEMG.

What is the main difference between CARY and IEMG?

CARY is categorized as Multisector Bonds, while IEMG is Emerging Markets Diversified. They also come from different issuers: Angel Oak and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for CARY and 0.09% for IEMG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CARY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.66 vs 2.03), 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.