CEMA.L vs. ESPS.L
CEMA.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc) and ESPS.L (Invesco MSCI Pacific Ex Japan ESG Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - CEMA.L tracks the MSCI EM Asia Index Net while ESPS.L tracks the MSCI Pacific Ex Japan NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CEMA.L returned 8.33%/yr vs 5.10%/yr for ESPS.L. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CEMA.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for ESPS.L.
Performance
CEMA.L vs. ESPS.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
CEMA.L is traded in USD, while ESPS.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the ESPS.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 ESPS.L's 7.16% 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%
ESPS.L
- 1D
- -0.69%
- 1M
- -0.46%
- YTD
- 7.16%
- 6M
- 8.87%
- 1Y
- 15.23%
- 3Y*
- 12.50%
- 5Y*
- 5.10%
- 10Y*
- —
CEMA.L vs. ESPS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEMA.L iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc | 32.32% | 33.97% | 12.43% | 6.65% | -21.47% | -12.90% |
ESPS.L Invesco MSCI Pacific Ex Japan ESG Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc | 7.16% | 18.50% | 5.81% | 7.20% | -8.84% | 4.56% |
Correlation
The correlation between CEMA.L and ESPS.L is 0.62, 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 | 0.62 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.54 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.44 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2021 | 0.42 |
Over the past year, CEMA.L and ESPS.L have become more correlated (0.62) than their long-term average of 0.42, meaning their price movements have been converging.
CEMA.L vs. ESPS.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CEMA.L
ESPS.L
Technology
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Communication Services
Basic Materials
Healthcare
Energy
Consumer Defensive
Utilities
Real Estate
Technology
CEMA.L
ESPS.L
Financial Services
CEMA.L
ESPS.L
Consumer Cyclical
CEMA.L
ESPS.L
Industrials
CEMA.L
ESPS.L
Communication Services
CEMA.L
ESPS.L
Basic Materials
CEMA.L
ESPS.L
Healthcare
CEMA.L
ESPS.L
Energy
CEMA.L
ESPS.L
Consumer Defensive
CEMA.L
ESPS.L
Utilities
CEMA.L
ESPS.L
Real Estate
CEMA.L
ESPS.L
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
CEMA.L vs. ESPS.L — Risk / Return Rank
CEMA.L
ESPS.L
CEMA.L vs. ESPS.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 Invesco MSCI Pacific Ex Japan ESG Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc (ESPS.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 | ESPS.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.83 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.13 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.53 | 1.21 | +0.33 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.58 | 1.67 | +2.91 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 16.97 | 5.25 | +11.72 |
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
| CEMA.L | ESPS.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.00 | 1.17 | +1.83 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.41 | 0.39 | +0.02 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.58 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.41 | 0.51 | -0.10 |
Drawdowns
CEMA.L vs. ESPS.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CEMA.L drawdown since its inception was -45.51%, which is greater than ESPS.L's maximum drawdown of -22.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEMA.L and ESPS.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CEMA.L | ESPS.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -45.51% | -22.90% | -22.61% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.77% | -9.09% | -4.68% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.95% | -19.21% | -0.74% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -41.15% | -22.90% | -18.25% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -45.51% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.33% | -3.68% | +2.35% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -15.08% | -5.61% | -9.47% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.72% | 2.89% | +0.83% |
Volatility
CEMA.L vs. ESPS.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) has a higher volatility of 9.45% compared to Invesco MSCI Pacific Ex Japan ESG Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc (ESPS.L) at 3.98%. This indicates that CEMA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ESPS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CEMA.L | ESPS.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.45% | 3.98% | +5.47% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 18.12% | 10.40% | +7.72% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 21.02% | 13.02% | +8.00% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.23% | 23.67% | -3.44% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.95% | 23.70% | -3.75% |
CEMA.L vs. ESPS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CEMA.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than ESPS.L's 0.19% 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. ESPS.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither CEMA.L nor ESPS.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
CEMA.L and ESPS.L have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ESPS.L is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ESPS.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for CEMA.L.
CEMA.L tracks MSCI EM Asia Index Net, while ESPS.L tracks MSCI Pacific Ex Japan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for CEMA.L and 0.19% for ESPS.L.
Find the right allocation for CEMA.L and ESPS.L
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