CEA1.L vs. IWDA.L
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.L) and iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IWDA.L).
CEA1.L and IWDA.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CEA1.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. It was launched on Aug 6, 2010. IWDA.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI World Index. It was launched on Sep 25, 2009. Both CEA1.L and IWDA.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: CEA1.L or IWDA.L.
Key characteristics
| CEA1.L | IWDA.L | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 10.33% | 8.53% |
| 1Y Return | 12.39% | 23.67% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | -1.13% | 7.03% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 4.70% | 11.80% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 7.32% | 9.38% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 0.86 | 2.07 |
| Daily Std Dev | 14.26% | 11.58% |
| Max Drawdown | -33.94% | -34.11% |
| Current Drawdown | -16.56% | -0.14% |
Correlation
The correlation between CEA1.L and IWDA.L is 0.61, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.
Performance
CEA1.L vs. IWDA.L - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, CEA1.L achieves a 10.33% return, which is significantly higher than IWDA.L's 8.53% return. Over the past 10 years, CEA1.L has underperformed IWDA.L with an annualized return of 7.32%, while IWDA.L has yielded a comparatively higher 9.38% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
CEA1.L vs. IWDA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both CEA1.L and IWDA.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%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
CEA1.L vs. IWDA.L - Risk-Adjusted Performance 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 World UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IWDA.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.
Dividends
CEA1.L vs. IWDA.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither CEA1.L nor IWDA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEA1.L iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.02% |
IWDA.L iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
CEA1.L vs. IWDA.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CEA1.L drawdown since its inception was -33.94%, roughly equal to the maximum IWDA.L drawdown of -34.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEA1.L and IWDA.L. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
CEA1.L vs. IWDA.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.L) and iShares Core MSCI World UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IWDA.L) have volatilities of 4.29% and 4.18%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.