CEA1.L vs. IUSF.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CEA1.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)) and IUSF.L (iShares Edge MSCI USA Size Factor 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 IUSF.L is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell Mid Cap TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CEA1.L returned 9.12%/yr vs 7.45%/yr for IUSF.L. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.20% expense ratio.

Performance

CEA1.L vs. IUSF.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 Edge MSCI USA Size Factor UCITS ETF (IUSF.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEA1.L achieves a 30.56% return, which is significantly higher than IUSF.L's 7.69% 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%

IUSF.L

• 1D: 0.64%
• 1M: 4.37%
• YTD: 7.69%
• 6M: 7.96%
• 1Y: 17.90%
• 3Y*: 11.63%
• 5Y*: 7.45%
• 10Y*: —

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

CEA1.L vs. IUSF.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%
IUSF.L iShares Edge MSCI USA Size Factor UCITS ETF	7.69%	1.00%	14.60%	10.79%	-8.57%	27.74%	13.62%	23.94%	-5.85%	7.91%

Correlation

The correlation between CEA1.L and IUSF.L is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.45
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 18, 2016	0.57

The correlation between CEA1.L and IUSF.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.45 (3 years) to 0.57 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors	CEA1.L	IUSF.L
Technology	49.6%	21.2%
Financial Services	13.7%	12.4%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	9.9%
Industrials	7.2%	16.5%
Communication Services	6.5%	3.9%
Basic Materials	3.4%	5.3%
Healthcare	3.0%	9.3%
Energy	2.5%	2.3%
Consumer Defensive	2.2%	5.7%
Utilities	1.4%	6.3%
Real Estate	0.7%	7.1%

Return for Risk

CEA1.L vs. IUSF.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

IUSF.L

IUSF.L Risk / Return Rank: 46
IUSF.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
IUSF.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
IUSF.L Omega Ratio Rank: 43
IUSF.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
IUSF.L Martin Ratio Rank: 46

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. IUSF.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 Edge MSCI USA Size Factor UCITS ETF (IUSF.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	IUSF.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.23	1.59	+1.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.12	2.21	+1.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	1.28	+0.31
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.09	2.41	+2.68
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.73	7.40	+10.33
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. IUSF.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEA1.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.23, which is higher than the IUSF.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEA1.L and IUSF.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	IUSF.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.23	1.59	+1.64
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51	0.47	+0.04
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.65	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.53	0.56	-0.03

Drawdowns

CEA1.L vs. IUSF.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEA1.L drawdown since its inception was -33.94%, roughly equal to the maximum IUSF.L drawdown of -33.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEA1.L and IUSF.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEA1.L	IUSF.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.94%	-33.67%	-0.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.68%	-7.39%	-4.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.35%	-22.73%	+5.38%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.87%	-22.73%	-6.14%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.94%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.67%	0.00%	-2.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.09%	-5.45%	-5.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.36%	2.41%	+0.95%

Volatility

CEA1.L vs. IUSF.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.L) has a higher volatility of 8.22% compared to iShares Edge MSCI USA Size Factor UCITS ETF (IUSF.L) at 2.67%. This indicates that CEA1.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IUSF.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CEA1.L	IUSF.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.22%	2.67%	+5.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.73%	7.66%	+8.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.45%	11.24%	+7.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.81%	15.95%	+1.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.53%	17.36%	+1.17%

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

Both CEA1.L and IUSF.L have an expense ratio of 0.20%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

CEA1.L vs. IUSF.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CEA1.L and IUSF.L have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

Both ETFs have the same 0.20% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

CEA1.L and IUSF.L have the same expense ratio: 0.20% per year.

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

CEA1.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while IUSF.L is Mid Cap Blend Equities. CEA1.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, while IUSF.L tracks Russell Mid Cap TR USD.