CEA1.L vs. EMAS.L

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

CEA1.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)) and EMAS.L (SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds tracking the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, from iShares and State Street respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CEA1.L returned 11.80%/yr vs 15.67%/yr for EMAS.L. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. CEA1.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for EMAS.L.

Performance

CEA1.L vs. EMAS.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 SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CEA1.L is traded in GBp, while EMAS.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the EMAS.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 31.64% return, which is significantly lower than EMAS.L's 81.22% return. Over the past 10 years, CEA1.L has underperformed EMAS.L with an annualized return of 11.80%, while EMAS.L has yielded a comparatively higher 15.67% annualized return.

CEA1.L

• 1D: 0.83%
• 1M: 2.85%
• YTD: 31.64%
• 6M: 33.65%
• 1Y: 54.58%
• 3Y*: 24.42%
• 5Y*: 8.95%
• 10Y*: 11.80%

EMAS.L

• 1D: 38.71%
• 1M: 39.97%
• YTD: 81.22%
• 6M: 83.42%
• 1Y: 108.74%
• 3Y*: 35.88%
• 5Y*: 15.70%
• 10Y*: 15.67%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CEA1.L iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)	31.64%	25.23%	13.67%	0.79%	-11.96%	-4.22%	23.90%	13.81%	-10.88%	29.65%
EMAS.L SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF	81.22%	22.99%	12.86%	0.62%	-12.26%	-4.94%	23.72%	13.20%	-9.78%	29.84%

Correlation

The correlation between CEA1.L and EMAS.L is 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.95
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.97
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 16, 2011	0.97

The correlation between CEA1.L and EMAS.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors	CEA1.L	EMAS.L
Technology	51.5%	52.1%
Financial Services	13.9%	13.2%
Consumer Cyclical	9.1%	9.6%
Communication Services	6.6%	6.1%
Industrials	6.6%	6.5%
Basic Materials	3.2%	3.3%
Healthcare	2.7%	2.8%
Energy	2.4%	2.4%
Consumer Defensive	2.0%	2.1%
Utilities	1.3%	1.3%
Real Estate	0.7%	0.6%

Return for Risk

CEA1.L vs. EMAS.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: 88
CEA1.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
CEA1.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
CEA1.L Omega Ratio Rank: 89
CEA1.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
CEA1.L Martin Ratio Rank: 85

EMAS.L

EMAS.L Risk / Return Rank: 97
EMAS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
EMAS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
EMAS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 98
EMAS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
EMAS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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. EMAS.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 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.

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.

	CEA1.L	EMAS.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.68	2.85	-0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.36	7.46	-4.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	2.09	-0.59
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.65	10.86	-6.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.27	35.46	-20.19

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

The current CEA1.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.68, which is comparable to the EMAS.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.85. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEA1.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.

Drawdowns

CEA1.L vs. EMAS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEA1.L drawdown since its inception was -98.40%, which is greater than EMAS.L's maximum drawdown of -53.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEA1.L and EMAS.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEA1.L	EMAS.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-98.40%	-53.67%	-44.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.68%	-11.14%	-0.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.44%	-25.14%	+0.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.87%	-29.16%	+0.29%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.94%	-34.79%	+0.85%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.43%	0.00%	-4.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.20%	-22.16%	+10.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.56%	3.42%	+0.14%

Volatility

CEA1.L vs. EMAS.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.L) is 10.05%, while SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L) has a volatility of 33.13%. This indicates that CEA1.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

	CEA1.L	EMAS.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.05%	33.13%	-23.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.94%	35.89%	-17.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.26%	42.41%	-22.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.82%	28.52%	-5.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.01%	24.30%	-3.29%

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

CEA1.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than EMAS.L's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEA1.L vs. EMAS.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.91, CEA1.L and EMAS.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 EMAS.L?

On fees, CEA1.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

CEA1.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for EMAS.L.

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

Both ETFs track MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for CEA1.L and 0.55% for EMAS.L.