CEA1.L vs. VUSA.L
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.L) and Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (VUSA.L).
CEA1.L and VUSA.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. VUSA.L is a passively managed fund by Vanguard that tracks the performance of the Russell 1000 TR USD. It was launched on May 22, 2012. Both CEA1.L and VUSA.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 VUSA.L.
Correlation
The correlation between CEA1.L and VUSA.L is 0.67, 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. VUSA.L - Performance Comparison
Key characteristics
CEA1.L:
0.13
VUSA.L:
-0.00
CEA1.L:
0.29
VUSA.L:
0.11
CEA1.L:
1.04
VUSA.L:
1.01
CEA1.L:
0.09
VUSA.L:
-0.00
CEA1.L:
0.42
VUSA.L:
-0.00
CEA1.L:
5.25%
VUSA.L:
5.37%
CEA1.L:
17.14%
VUSA.L:
15.71%
CEA1.L:
-33.94%
VUSA.L:
-25.47%
CEA1.L:
-19.97%
VUSA.L:
-19.06%
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CEA1.L achieves a -6.89% return, which is significantly higher than VUSA.L's -15.29% return. Over the past 10 years, CEA1.L has underperformed VUSA.L with an annualized return of 4.07%, while VUSA.L has yielded a comparatively higher 12.62% annualized return.
CEA1.L
-6.89%
-10.14%
-10.98%
2.53%
4.01%
4.07%
VUSA.L
-15.29%
-8.41%
-10.63%
-0.34%
13.31%
12.62%
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. VUSA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CEA1.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than VUSA.L's 0.07% 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%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
CEA1.L vs. VUSA.L — Risk-Adjusted Performance Rank
CEA1.L
VUSA.L
CEA1.L vs. VUSA.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 Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (VUSA.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. VUSA.L - Dividend Comparison
CEA1.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while VUSA.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.20%.
| TTM | 2024 | 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% | 0.00% | 1.71% |
VUSA.L Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF | 1.20% | 1.00% | 1.24% | 1.41% | 1.04% | 1.44% | 1.50% | 1.72% | 1.61% | 1.58% | 1.73% | 1.50% |
Drawdowns
CEA1.L vs. VUSA.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CEA1.L drawdown since its inception was -33.94%, which is greater than VUSA.L's maximum drawdown of -25.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEA1.L and VUSA.L. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
CEA1.L vs. VUSA.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.L) and Vanguard S&P 500 UCITS ETF (VUSA.L) have volatilities of 10.98% and 11.53%, 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.