CEMA.L vs. IGLN.L
CEMA.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc) and IGLN.L (iShares Physical Gold ETC) are both exchange-traded funds - CEMA.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM Asia Index Net, while IGLN.L is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CEMA.L returned 11.62%/yr vs 13.40%/yr for IGLN.L. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CEMA.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for IGLN.L.
Performance
CEMA.L vs. IGLN.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CEMA.L achieves a 32.32% return, which is significantly higher than IGLN.L's 3.00% return. Over the past 10 years, CEMA.L has underperformed IGLN.L with an annualized return of 11.62%, while IGLN.L has yielded a comparatively higher 13.40% 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%
IGLN.L
- 1D
- -1.45%
- 1M
- -4.23%
- YTD
- 3.00%
- 6M
- 5.09%
- 1Y
- 32.44%
- 3Y*
- 31.11%
- 5Y*
- 18.45%
- 10Y*
- 13.40%
CEMA.L vs. IGLN.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% |
IGLN.L iShares Physical Gold ETC | 3.00% | 64.92% | 26.14% | 13.44% | -0.09% | -4.03% | 24.16% | 18.28% | -1.31% | 11.67% |
Correlation
The correlation between CEMA.L and IGLN.L is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.34 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.29 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.28 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.18 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 13, 2011 | 0.13 |
Over the past year, CEMA.L and IGLN.L have become more correlated (0.34) than their long-term average of 0.13, meaning their price movements have been converging.
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. IGLN.L — Risk / Return Rank
CEMA.L
IGLN.L
CEMA.L vs. IGLN.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 Physical Gold ETC (IGLN.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 | IGLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.70 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.19 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.53 | 1.25 | +0.28 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.58 | 1.86 | +2.72 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 16.97 | 4.85 | +12.11 |
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 | IGLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.00 | 1.30 | +1.70 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.41 | 1.06 | -0.65 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.58 | 0.86 | -0.28 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.41 | 0.45 | -0.04 |
Drawdowns
CEMA.L vs. IGLN.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CEMA.L drawdown since its inception was -45.51%, roughly equal to the maximum IGLN.L drawdown of -45.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEMA.L and IGLN.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CEMA.L | IGLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -45.51% | -45.24% | -0.27% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.77% | -17.36% | +3.59% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.95% | -17.36% | -2.59% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -41.15% | -21.15% | -20.00% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -45.51% | -21.15% | -24.36% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.33% | -16.23% | +14.90% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -15.08% | -19.80% | +4.72% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.72% | 6.66% | -2.94% |
Volatility
CEMA.L vs. IGLN.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) has a higher volatility of 9.45% compared to iShares Physical Gold ETC (IGLN.L) at 6.40%. This indicates that CEMA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IGLN.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CEMA.L | IGLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.45% | 6.40% | +3.05% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 18.12% | 21.73% | -3.61% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 21.02% | 24.79% | -3.77% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.23% | 17.37% | +2.86% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.95% | 15.54% | +4.41% |
CEMA.L vs. IGLN.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CEMA.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than IGLN.L's 0.25% expense ratio. Despite the difference, 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. IGLN.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither CEMA.L nor IGLN.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
CEMA.L and IGLN.L have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
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.
CEMA.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for IGLN.L.
CEMA.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while IGLN.L is Gold. CEMA.L tracks MSCI EM Asia Index Net, while IGLN.L tracks LBMA Gold Price. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for CEMA.L and 0.25% for IGLN.L.
Find the right allocation for CEMA.L and IGLN.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