CEA1.L vs. XMTW.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CEA1.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)) and XMTW.L (Xtrackers MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF 1C) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - CEA1.L tracks the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD while XMTW.L tracks the MSCI Taiwan NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CEA1.L returned 12.09%/yr vs 23.25%/yr for XMTW.L. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CEA1.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for XMTW.L.

Performance

CEA1.L vs. XMTW.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 Xtrackers MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF 1C (XMTW.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 lower than XMTW.L's 67.90% return. Over the past 10 years, CEA1.L has underperformed XMTW.L with an annualized return of 12.09%, while XMTW.L has yielded a comparatively higher 23.25% 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%

XMTW.L

• 1D: -1.55%
• 1M: 14.93%
• YTD: 67.90%
• 6M: 73.86%
• 1Y: 118.61%
• 3Y*: 41.00%
• 5Y*: 23.21%
• 10Y*: 23.25%

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

CEA1.L vs. XMTW.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%
XMTW.L Xtrackers MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF 1C	67.90%	23.98%	25.99%	21.66%	-21.11%	28.96%	32.40%	29.87%	-3.71%	16.78%

Correlation

The correlation between CEA1.L and XMTW.L is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.74
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 7, 2013	0.80

The correlation between CEA1.L and XMTW.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors	CEA1.L	XMTW.L
Technology	49.6%	78.9%
Financial Services	13.7%	11.8%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	1.2%
Industrials	7.2%	2.8%
Communication Services	6.5%	1.5%
Basic Materials	3.4%	2.4%
Healthcare	3.0%	0.6%
Energy	2.5%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.2%	0.8%
Utilities	1.4%	-
Real Estate	0.7%	-

Return for Risk

CEA1.L vs. XMTW.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

XMTW.L

XMTW.L Risk / Return Rank: 97
XMTW.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
XMTW.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
XMTW.L Omega Ratio Rank: 97
XMTW.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
XMTW.L Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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. XMTW.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 Xtrackers MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF 1C (XMTW.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	XMTW.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.23	5.22	-1.99
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.12	5.92	-1.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	1.84	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.09	13.03	-7.93
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.73	36.03	-18.30
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. XMTW.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEA1.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.23, which is lower than the XMTW.L Sharpe Ratio of 5.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEA1.L and XMTW.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	XMTW.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.23	5.22	-1.99
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51	1.13	-0.62
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.65	1.16	-0.51
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.53	0.66	-0.14

Drawdowns

CEA1.L vs. XMTW.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEA1.L drawdown since its inception was -33.94%, smaller than the maximum XMTW.L drawdown of -47.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEA1.L and XMTW.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEA1.L	XMTW.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.94%	-47.86%	+13.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.68%	-9.05%	-2.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.35%	-28.76%	+11.41%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.87%	-30.18%	+1.31%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-33.94%	-30.18%	-3.76%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.67%	-1.57%	-1.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.09%	-8.70%	-2.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.36%	3.28%	+0.08%

Volatility

CEA1.L vs. XMTW.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.L) is 8.22%, while Xtrackers MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF 1C (XMTW.L) has a volatility of 9.41%. This indicates that CEA1.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XMTW.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CEA1.L	XMTW.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.22%	9.41%	-1.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.73%	18.21%	-2.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.45%	22.59%	-4.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.81%	20.47%	-2.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.53%	20.06%	-1.53%

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

CEA1.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than XMTW.L's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEA1.L vs. XMTW.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CEA1.L and XMTW.L have a correlation of 0.82, 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 XMTW.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 XMTW.L?

CEA1.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for XMTW.L.

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

CEA1.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, while XMTW.L tracks MSCI Taiwan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for CEA1.L and 0.65% for XMTW.L.