PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CEMA.L vs. ITWN.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CEMA.L vs. ITWN.L

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

CEMA.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc) and ITWN.L (iShares MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds from iShares - CEMA.L tracks the MSCI EM Asia Index Net while ITWN.L tracks the MSCI Taiwan NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CEMA.L returned 11.79%/yr vs 22.39%/yr for ITWN.L. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CEMA.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.74%/yr for ITWN.L.

Performance

CEMA.L vs. ITWN.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 Taiwan UCITS ETF (ITWN.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CEMA.L is traded in USD, while ITWN.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the ITWN.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 28.78% return, which is significantly lower than ITWN.L's 65.84% return. Over the past 10 years, CEMA.L has underperformed ITWN.L with an annualized return of 11.79%, while ITWN.L has yielded a comparatively higher 22.39% annualized return.

CEMA.L

1D
0.83%
1M
0.84%
YTD
28.78%
6M
30.54%
1Y
49.58%
3Y*
25.92%
5Y*
7.81%
10Y*
11.79%

ITWN.L

1D
0.16%
1M
2.06%
YTD
65.84%
6M
69.37%
1Y
98.77%
3Y*
43.17%
5Y*
21.51%
10Y*
22.39%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CEMA.L
iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc		28.78%33.97%12.43%6.65%-21.47%-5.32%28.23%17.50%-14.51%40.34%
ITWN.L
iShares MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF		65.84%31.86%23.68%28.27%-29.51%28.66%34.37%35.09%-9.34%27.66%

Correlation

The correlation between CEMA.L and ITWN.L is 0.82, 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

0.82

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.75

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.75

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.77

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 24, 2010

0.78

The correlation between CEMA.L and ITWN.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors
CEMA.L
ITWN.L

Technology

54.4%
82.6%

Financial Services

13.4%
10.4%

Consumer Cyclical

8.2%
0.9%

Industrials

6.4%
1.8%

Communication Services

5.9%
1.3%

Basic Materials

3.2%
1.8%

Healthcare

2.5%
0.5%

Energy

2.2%

-

Consumer Defensive

1.9%
0.7%

Utilities

1.2%

-

Real Estate

0.6%

-

Technology

CEMA.L
54.4%
ITWN.L
82.6%

Financial Services

CEMA.L
13.4%
ITWN.L
10.4%

Consumer Cyclical

CEMA.L
8.2%
ITWN.L
0.9%

Industrials

CEMA.L
6.4%
ITWN.L
1.8%

Communication Services

CEMA.L
5.9%
ITWN.L
1.3%

Basic Materials

CEMA.L
3.2%
ITWN.L
1.8%

Healthcare

CEMA.L
2.5%
ITWN.L
0.5%

Energy

CEMA.L
2.2%
ITWN.L

-

Consumer Defensive

CEMA.L
1.9%
ITWN.L
0.7%

Utilities

CEMA.L
1.2%
ITWN.L

-

Real Estate

CEMA.L
0.6%
ITWN.L

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc

iShares MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF

Often compared with CEMA.L:
CEMA.L vs. ESPS.LCEMA.L vs. XMTW.LCEMA.L vs. EIMI.LCEMA.L vs. CSKR.LCEMA.L vs. ISAC.LCEMA.L vs. CNDX.LCEMA.L vs. IKOR.L
Often compared with ITWN.L:
ITWN.L vs. QQQITWN.L vs. SPINXITWN.L vs. TSMITWN.L vs. VTIITWN.L vs. VWCE.DEITWN.L vs. FLXT.DEITWN.L vs. IUIT.L

Return for Risk

CEMA.L vs. ITWN.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: 7676
Overall Rank
CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7878
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7777
Omega Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
ITWN.L
ITWN.L Risk / Return Rank: 9797
Overall Rank
ITWN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ITWN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9696
Sortino Ratio Rank
ITWN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9696
Omega Ratio Rank
ITWN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9898
Calmar Ratio Rank
ITWN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9696
Martin Ratio Rank
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. ITWN.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 Taiwan UCITS ETF (ITWN.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.LITWN.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.19
3.77

-1.59

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.87
4.43

-1.56

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.40

1.59

-0.19

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.58

8.65

-5.07

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.53

24.99

-12.46

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

The current CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.19, which is lower than the ITWN.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEMA.L and ITWN.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.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

CEMA.L vs. ITWN.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEMA.L drawdown since its inception was -45.51%, smaller than the maximum ITWN.L drawdown of -79.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEMA.L and ITWN.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CEMA.LITWN.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-45.51%

-79.46%

+33.95%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.77%

-11.35%

-2.42%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.95%

-28.01%

+8.06%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-41.15%

-41.23%

+0.08%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.51%

-41.23%

-4.28%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.92%

-6.39%

+1.47%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-14.54%

-33.58%

+19.04%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.95%

3.94%

+0.01%

Volatility

CEMA.L vs. ITWN.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) and iShares MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF (ITWN.L) have volatilities of 10.33% and 10.81%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CEMA.LITWN.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.33%

10.81%

-0.48%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

20.39%

22.04%

-1.65%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

22.58%

26.06%

-3.48%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.65%

23.13%

-2.48%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.09%

21.62%

-1.53%

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

CEMA.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than ITWN.L's 0.74% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEMA.L vs. ITWN.L - Dividend Comparison

CEMA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ITWN.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CEMA.L
iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
ITWN.L
iShares MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF		0.89%1.50%1.37%2.14%3.54%1.33%1.83%2.30%2.72%2.74%2.86%3.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

CEMA.L and ITWN.L have a correlation of 0.82, 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 0.74% for ITWN.L.

CEMA.L tracks MSCI EM Asia Index Net, while ITWN.L tracks MSCI Taiwan NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for CEMA.L and 0.74% for ITWN.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CEMA.L and ITWN.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