CEMA.L vs. CSP1.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CEMA.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc) and CSP1.L (iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CEMA.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM Asia Index Net, while CSP1.L is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CEMA.L returned 11.62%/yr vs 15.32%/yr for CSP1.L. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CEMA.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for CSP1.L.

Performance

CEMA.L vs. CSP1.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) and iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSP1.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CEMA.L is traded in USD, while CSP1.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the CSP1.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEMA.L achieves a 32.32% return, which is significantly higher than CSP1.L's 10.23% return. Over the past 10 years, CEMA.L has underperformed CSP1.L with an annualized return of 11.62%, while CSP1.L has yielded a comparatively higher 15.32% annualized return.

CEMA.L

• 1D: -1.33%
• 1M: 11.44%
• YTD: 32.32%
• 6M: 36.37%
• 1Y: 63.33%
• 3Y*: 26.83%
• 5Y*: 8.33%
• 10Y*: 11.62%

CSP1.L

• 1D: -0.56%
• 1M: 4.80%
• YTD: 10.23%
• 6M: 10.92%
• 1Y: 28.17%
• 3Y*: 22.34%
• 5Y*: 13.72%
• 10Y*: 15.32%

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

CEMA.L vs. CSP1.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CEMA.L iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc	32.32%	33.97%	12.43%	6.65%	-21.47%	-5.32%	28.23%	17.50%	-15.71%	42.34%
CSP1.L iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF	10.23%	17.63%	25.22%	26.11%	-18.77%	29.88%	17.14%	31.49%	-5.65%	21.38%

Correlation

The correlation between CEMA.L and CSP1.L is 0.66, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.66
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.58
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.59
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2010	0.57

The correlation between CEMA.L and CSP1.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

CEMA.L vs. CSP1.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CEMA.L	CSP1.L
Technology	49.6%	38.0%
Financial Services	13.7%	11.3%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	9.9%
Industrials	7.2%	7.9%
Communication Services	6.5%	10.7%
Basic Materials	3.4%	1.7%
Healthcare	3.0%	8.4%
Energy	2.5%	3.4%
Consumer Defensive	2.2%	4.7%
Utilities	1.4%	2.2%
Real Estate	0.7%	1.9%

Return for Risk

CEMA.L vs. CSP1.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CEMA.L

CEMA.L Risk / Return Rank: 86
CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
CEMA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
CEMA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 87
CEMA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
CEMA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 84

CSP1.L

CSP1.L Risk / Return Rank: 80
CSP1.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
CSP1.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
CSP1.L Omega Ratio Rank: 82
CSP1.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
CSP1.L Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

CEMA.L vs. CSP1.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) and iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSP1.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.

	CEMA.L	CSP1.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.00	2.51	+0.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.93	3.60	+0.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.53	1.45	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.58	3.23	+1.35
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.97	13.95	+3.02
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CEMA.L vs. CSP1.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.00, which is comparable to the CSP1.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEMA.L and CSP1.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

	CEMA.L	CSP1.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.00	2.51	+0.49
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41	0.88	-0.46
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.58	0.95	-0.37
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.41	1.00	-0.59

Drawdowns

CEMA.L vs. CSP1.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEMA.L drawdown since its inception was -45.51%, which is greater than CSP1.L's maximum drawdown of -33.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEMA.L and CSP1.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEMA.L	CSP1.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.51%	-33.51%	-12.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.77%	-8.68%	-5.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.95%	-18.69%	-1.26%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.15%	-25.16%	-15.99%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.51%	-33.51%	-12.00%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.33%	-0.56%	-0.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.08%	-3.87%	-11.21%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.72%	2.01%	+1.71%

Volatility

CEMA.L vs. CSP1.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) has a higher volatility of 9.45% compared to iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSP1.L) at 2.49%. This indicates that CEMA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSP1.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CEMA.L	CSP1.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.45%	2.49%	+6.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.12%	7.96%	+10.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.02%	11.23%	+9.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.23%	15.67%	+4.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.95%	16.12%	+3.83%

CEMA.L vs. CSP1.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEMA.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than CSP1.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%.

Dividends

CEMA.L vs. CSP1.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CEMA.L nor CSP1.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CEMA.L and CSP1.L in my portfolio?

CEMA.L and CSP1.L have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CEMA.L or CSP1.L?

On fees, CSP1.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CEMA.L or CSP1.L?

CSP1.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for CEMA.L.

What is the main difference between CEMA.L and CSP1.L?

CEMA.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while CSP1.L is S&P 500. CEMA.L tracks MSCI EM Asia Index Net, while CSP1.L tracks S&P 500 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for CEMA.L and 0.07% for CSP1.L.