CEBL.DE vs. FXI
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEBL.DE) and iShares China Large-Cap ETF (FXI).
CEBL.DE and FXI are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CEBL.DE is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia. It was launched on Aug 6, 2010. FXI is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the FTSE China 25 Index. It was launched on Oct 5, 2004. Both CEBL.DE and FXI 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: CEBL.DE or FXI.
Key characteristics
| CEBL.DE | FXI | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 18.39% | 26.37% |
| 1Y Return | 20.35% | 17.19% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | -0.52% | -7.81% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 4.95% | -3.76% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 6.22% | -0.50% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.33 | 0.60 |
| Sortino Ratio | 1.91 | 1.10 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.25 | 1.13 |
| Calmar Ratio | 0.74 | 0.34 |
| Martin Ratio | 6.79 | 1.83 |
| Ulcer Index | 3.03% | 10.78% |
| Daily Std Dev | 15.54% | 32.67% |
| Max Drawdown | -35.09% | -72.68% |
| Current Drawdown | -10.05% | -40.18% |
Correlation
The correlation between CEBL.DE and FXI is 0.63, 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
CEBL.DE vs. FXI - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, CEBL.DE achieves a 18.39% return, which is significantly lower than FXI's 26.37% return. Over the past 10 years, CEBL.DE has outperformed FXI with an annualized return of 6.22%, while FXI has yielded a comparatively lower -0.50% 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.
CEBL.DE vs. FXI - Expense Ratio Comparison
CEBL.DE has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than FXI's 0.74% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
CEBL.DE vs. FXI - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEBL.DE) and iShares China Large-Cap ETF (FXI). 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
CEBL.DE vs. FXI - Dividend Comparison
CEBL.DE has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FXI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.29%.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEBL.DE 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% | 1.69% | 1.86% |
FXI iShares China Large-Cap ETF | 2.29% | 3.17% | 2.61% | 1.60% | 2.19% | 2.74% | 2.69% | 2.31% | 2.69% | 2.90% | 2.51% | 2.64% |
Drawdowns
CEBL.DE vs. FXI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CEBL.DE drawdown since its inception was -35.09%, smaller than the maximum FXI drawdown of -72.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEBL.DE and FXI. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
CEBL.DE vs. FXI - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEBL.DE) is 6.17%, while iShares China Large-Cap ETF (FXI) has a volatility of 11.63%. This indicates that CEBL.DE experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FXI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.