CEMA.L vs. EMAS.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

CEMA.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc) and EMAS.L (SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - CEMA.L tracks the MSCI EM Asia Index Net while EMAS.L tracks the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. Both are passively managed. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CEMA.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for EMAS.L.

Performance

CEMA.L vs. EMAS.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 SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

CEMA.L

• 1D: -0.48%
• 1M: -7.06%
• 6M: 16.81%
• YTD: 22.45%
• 1Y: 40.02%
• 3Y*: 21.86%
• 5Y*: 7.43%
• 10Y*: 10.13%

EMAS.L

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CEMA.L vs. EMAS.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	22.45%	33.97%	12.43%	6.65%	-21.47%	-5.32%	28.23%	17.50%	-14.51%	40.34%
EMAS.L SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF	81.34%	32.27%	10.98%	5.93%	-21.64%	-5.80%	27.51%	17.74%	-14.89%	42.20%

Correlation

The correlation between CEMA.L and EMAS.L is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.92
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 16, 2011	0.93

The correlation between CEMA.L and EMAS.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors	CEMA.L	EMAS.L
Technology	54.6%	52.1%
Financial Services	13.4%	13.2%
Consumer Cyclical	7.9%	9.6%
Industrials	6.3%	6.5%
Communication Services	6.0%	6.1%
Basic Materials	3.1%	3.3%
Healthcare	2.7%	2.8%
Energy	2.2%	2.4%
Consumer Defensive	1.9%	2.1%
Utilities	1.2%	1.3%
Real Estate	0.6%	0.6%

Return for Risk

CEMA.L vs. EMAS.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: 64
CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
CEMA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
CEMA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 63
CEMA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
CEMA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 64

EMAS.L

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. EMAS.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 SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	CEMA.L	EMAS.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.68	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.27	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.89	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.20	—	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	CEMA.L	EMAS.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.51%	—	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.77%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.95%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.96%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.51%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.59%	—	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.52%	—	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.34%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CEMA.L	EMAS.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.19%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.60%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.77%	—	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.87%	—	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.15%	—	—

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

CEMA.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than EMAS.L's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEMA.L vs. EMAS.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CEMA.L and EMAS.L have a correlation of 0.86, 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 EMAS.L?

On fees, CEMA.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, CEMA.L or EMAS.L?

CEMA.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for EMAS.L.

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

CEMA.L tracks MSCI EM Asia Index Net, while EMAS.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for CEMA.L and 0.55% for EMAS.L.