CEA1.L vs. EIMI.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CEA1.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)) and EIMI.L (iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CEA1.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, while EIMI.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CEA1.L returned 12.09%/yr vs 11.09%/yr for EIMI.L. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CEA1.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for EIMI.L.

Performance

CEA1.L vs. EIMI.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.L) and iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CEA1.L is traded in GBp, while EIMI.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the EIMI.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEA1.L achieves a 30.56% return, which is significantly higher than EIMI.L's 24.75% return. Over the past 10 years, CEA1.L has outperformed EIMI.L with an annualized return of 12.09%, while EIMI.L has yielded a comparatively lower 11.09% annualized return.

CEA1.L

• 1D: -1.69%
• 1M: 8.28%
• YTD: 30.56%
• 6M: 33.05%
• 1Y: 59.80%
• 3Y*: 23.16%
• 5Y*: 9.12%
• 10Y*: 12.09%

EIMI.L

• 1D: -1.30%
• 1M: 5.47%
• YTD: 24.75%
• 6M: 26.33%
• 1Y: 50.86%
• 3Y*: 20.20%
• 5Y*: 8.77%
• 10Y*: 11.09%

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

CEA1.L vs. EIMI.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CEA1.L iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)	30.56%	25.23%	13.67%	0.79%	-11.96%	-4.22%	23.90%	13.81%	-10.88%	29.65%
EIMI.L iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF	24.75%	22.75%	9.23%	5.48%	-10.12%	0.29%	15.31%	11.94%	-9.08%	25.11%

Correlation

The correlation between CEA1.L and EIMI.L is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.93
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.92
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 10, 2014	0.91

The correlation between CEA1.L and EIMI.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

CEA1.L vs. EIMI.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CEA1.L	EIMI.L
Technology	49.6%	35.0%
Financial Services	13.7%	18.4%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	9.6%
Industrials	7.2%	8.9%
Communication Services	6.5%	6.4%
Basic Materials	3.4%	6.9%
Healthcare	3.0%	3.7%
Energy	2.5%	3.9%
Consumer Defensive	2.2%	3.3%
Utilities	1.4%	2.2%
Real Estate	0.7%	1.7%

Return for Risk

CEA1.L vs. EIMI.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CEA1.L

CEA1.L Risk / Return Rank: 89
CEA1.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
CEA1.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
CEA1.L Omega Ratio Rank: 91
CEA1.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
CEA1.L Martin Ratio Rank: 86

EIMI.L

EIMI.L Risk / Return Rank: 78
EIMI.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
EIMI.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
EIMI.L Omega Ratio Rank: 80
EIMI.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
EIMI.L Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

CEA1.L vs. EIMI.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.L) and iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.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.

	CEA1.L	EIMI.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.23	2.83	+0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.12	3.67	+0.44
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	1.53	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.09	4.78	+0.31
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.73	16.25	+1.48
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CEA1.L vs. EIMI.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEA1.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.23, which is comparable to the EIMI.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEA1.L and EIMI.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

	CEA1.L	EIMI.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.23	2.83	+0.40
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51	0.53	-0.02
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.65	0.60	+0.05
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.53	0.47	+0.05

Drawdowns

CEA1.L vs. EIMI.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEA1.L drawdown since its inception was -33.94%, which is greater than EIMI.L's maximum drawdown of -31.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEA1.L and EIMI.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEA1.L	EIMI.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.94%	-31.70%	-2.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.68%	-10.58%	-1.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.35%	-15.79%	-1.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.87%	-22.27%	-6.60%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.94%	-26.10%	-7.84%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.67%	-2.29%	-0.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.09%	-8.72%	-2.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.36%	3.12%	+0.24%

Volatility

CEA1.L vs. EIMI.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.L) has a higher volatility of 8.22% compared to iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L) at 7.58%. This indicates that CEA1.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EIMI.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CEA1.L	EIMI.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.22%	7.58%	+0.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.73%	15.58%	+0.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.45%	17.91%	+0.54%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.81%	16.61%	+1.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.53%	18.39%	+0.14%

CEA1.L vs. EIMI.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEA1.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than EIMI.L's 0.18% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

CEA1.L vs. EIMI.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CEA1.L nor EIMI.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CEA1.L and EIMI.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, CEA1.L and EIMI.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, CEA1.L or EIMI.L?

On fees, EIMI.L is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CEA1.L or EIMI.L?

EIMI.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for CEA1.L.

What is the main difference between CEA1.L and EIMI.L?

CEA1.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while EIMI.L is Emerging Markets Equities. CEA1.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, while EIMI.L tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for CEA1.L and 0.18% for EIMI.L.