CEBL.DE vs. LCUA.DE
CEBL.DE (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)) and LCUA.DE (Amundi MSCI Emerging Asia II UCITS ETF Acc) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia, from iShares and Amundi respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CEBL.DE returned 8.97%/yr vs 8.90%/yr for LCUA.DE. With a 0.98 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. CEBL.DE charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for LCUA.DE.
Performance
CEBL.DE vs. LCUA.DE - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with CEBL.DE having a 31.90% return and LCUA.DE slightly lower at 31.85%.
CEBL.DE
- 1D
- -1.89%
- 1M
- 5.19%
- YTD
- 31.90%
- 6M
- 32.33%
- 1Y
- 54.45%
- 3Y*
- 22.99%
- 5Y*
- 8.97%
- 10Y*
- 11.02%
LCUA.DE
- 1D
- -1.97%
- 1M
- 7.77%
- YTD
- 31.85%
- 6M
- 33.69%
- 1Y
- 54.70%
- 3Y*
- 22.72%
- 5Y*
- 8.90%
- 10Y*
- —
CEBL.DE vs. LCUA.DE - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEBL.DE iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) | 31.90% | 19.13% | 18.60% | 3.15% | -15.54% | 2.03% | 15.18% | 22.17% | -11.21% |
LCUA.DE Amundi MSCI Emerging Asia II UCITS ETF Acc | 31.85% | 18.08% | 18.51% | 3.26% | -14.89% | 1.98% | 15.44% | 22.39% | -10.90% |
Correlation
The correlation between CEBL.DE and LCUA.DE is 0.97 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.98 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.98 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 28, 2018 | 0.98 |
The correlation between CEBL.DE and LCUA.DE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CEBL.DE vs. LCUA.DE — Risk / Return Rank
CEBL.DE
LCUA.DE
CEBL.DE vs. LCUA.DE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEBL.DE) and Amundi MSCI Emerging Asia II UCITS ETF Acc (LCUA.DE). 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.
| CEBL.DE | LCUA.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.09 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.17 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.50 | 1.49 | +0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.83 | 4.49 | +0.34 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 17.67 | 16.33 | +1.33 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CEBL.DE | LCUA.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.81 | 2.72 | +0.09 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.00 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.58 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.43 | 0.48 | -0.05 |
Drawdowns
CEBL.DE vs. LCUA.DE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CEBL.DE drawdown since its inception was -35.09%, which is greater than LCUA.DE's maximum drawdown of -33.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEBL.DE and LCUA.DE.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CEBL.DE | LCUA.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -35.09% | -33.18% | -1.91% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.43% | -12.13% | +0.70% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -20.53% | -21.07% | +0.54% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -29.00% | -28.54% | -0.46% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -33.12% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.85% | -2.86% | +0.01% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.09% | -12.02% | +0.93% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.13% | 3.34% | -0.21% |
Volatility
CEBL.DE vs. LCUA.DE - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEBL.DE) and Amundi MSCI Emerging Asia II UCITS ETF Acc (LCUA.DE) have volatilities of 8.24% and 8.54%, 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CEBL.DE | LCUA.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.24% | 8.54% | -0.30% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 16.36% | 17.04% | -0.68% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.68% | 20.08% | -0.40% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.48% | 18.48% | 0.00% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.94% | 19.46% | -0.52% |
CEBL.DE vs. LCUA.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison
CEBL.DE has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than LCUA.DE's 0.12% 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%.
Dividends
CEBL.DE vs. LCUA.DE - Dividend Comparison
Neither CEBL.DE nor LCUA.DE has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.97, CEBL.DE and LCUA.DE move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
On fees, LCUA.DE is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
LCUA.DE is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for CEBL.DE.
Both ETFs track MSCI Emerging Markets Asia. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for CEBL.DE and 0.12% for LCUA.DE.
Find the right allocation for CEBL.DE and LCUA.DE
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer