CEMA.L vs. IASH.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

CEMA.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc) and IASH.L (iShares MSCI China A UCITS USD) are both exchange-traded funds - CEMA.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM Asia Index Net, while IASH.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CEMA.L returned 10.13%/yr vs 5.59%/yr for IASH.L. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CEMA.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for IASH.L.

Performance

CEMA.L vs. IASH.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 MSCI China A UCITS USD (IASH.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CEMA.L is traded in USD, while IASH.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the IASH.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 22.45% return, which is significantly higher than IASH.L's 6.73% return. Over the past 10 years, CEMA.L has outperformed IASH.L with an annualized return of 10.13%, while IASH.L has yielded a comparatively lower 5.59% annualized return.

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%

IASH.L

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: -2.30%
• 6M: 3.83%
• YTD: 6.73%
• 1Y: 28.45%
• 3Y*: 10.25%
• 5Y*: -0.76%
• 10Y*: 5.59%

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

CEMA.L vs. IASH.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%
IASH.L iShares MSCI China A UCITS USD	6.73%	26.55%	11.04%	-14.55%	-26.12%	3.53%	41.86%	35.42%	-26.63%	30.38%

Correlation

The correlation between CEMA.L and IASH.L is 0.61, 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	0.61
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.57
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 8, 2015	0.62

The correlation between CEMA.L and IASH.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors	CEMA.L	IASH.L
Technology	54.6%	31.8%
Financial Services	13.4%	17.5%
Consumer Cyclical	7.9%	5.2%
Industrials	6.3%	15.5%
Communication Services	6.0%	1.3%
Basic Materials	3.1%	11.2%
Healthcare	2.7%	4.0%
Energy	2.2%	3.1%
Consumer Defensive	1.9%	6.7%
Utilities	1.2%	3.3%
Real Estate	0.6%	0.5%

Return for Risk

CEMA.L vs. IASH.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

IASH.L

IASH.L Risk / Return Rank: 60
IASH.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
IASH.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
IASH.L Omega Ratio Rank: 53
IASH.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
IASH.L Martin Ratio Rank: 64

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. IASH.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 MSCI China A UCITS USD (IASH.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	IASH.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.68	1.53	+0.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.27	2.15	+0.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.27	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.89	3.59	-0.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.20	9.52	-0.32

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

The current CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.68, which is comparable to the IASH.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEMA.L and IASH.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.

Drawdowns

CEMA.L vs. IASH.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEMA.L drawdown since its inception was -45.51%, smaller than the maximum IASH.L drawdown of -59.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEMA.L and IASH.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEMA.L	IASH.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.51%	-59.92%	+14.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.77%	-7.88%	-5.89%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.95%	-29.65%	+9.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.96%	-44.66%	+5.70%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.51%	-49.34%	+3.83%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.59%	-20.75%	+11.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.52%	-40.00%	+25.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.34%	2.98%	+1.36%

Volatility

CEMA.L vs. IASH.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) has a higher volatility of 10.19% compared to iShares MSCI China A UCITS USD (IASH.L) at 8.50%. This indicates that CEMA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IASH.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CEMA.L	IASH.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.19%	8.50%	+1.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.60%	14.34%	+7.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.77%	18.58%	+5.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.87%	26.32%	-5.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.15%	24.57%	-4.42%

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

CEMA.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than IASH.L's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEMA.L vs. IASH.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CEMA.L and IASH.L have a correlation of 0.61, 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 IASH.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 IASH.L?

CEMA.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for IASH.L.

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

CEMA.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while IASH.L is China Equities. CEMA.L tracks MSCI EM Asia Index Net, while IASH.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for CEMA.L and 0.40% for IASH.L.