PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

CEMA.L vs. PAXG.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CEMA.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc) and PAXG.L (Lyxor MSCI Pacific Ex Japan UCITS) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - CEMA.L tracks the MSCI EM Asia Index Net while PAXG.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 1.03%/yr for PAXG.L. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CEMA.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for PAXG.L.

Performance

CEMA.L vs. PAXG.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 Lyxor MSCI Pacific Ex Japan UCITS (PAXG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CEMA.L is traded in USD, while PAXG.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the PAXG.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 PAXG.L's 9.53% 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%

PAXG.L

1D
-0.80%
1M
0.15%
YTD
9.53%
6M
7.81%
1Y
14.50%
3Y*
9.77%
5Y*
1.03%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
PAXG.L
Lyxor MSCI Pacific Ex Japan UCITS		9.53%16.83%-0.21%2.59%-10.69%-1.18%4.58%8.02%-6.39%14.44%

Correlation

The correlation between CEMA.L and PAXG.L is 0.63, 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

0.63

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

0.58

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

0.45

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 2, 2016

0.34

Over the past year, CEMA.L and PAXG.L have become more correlated (0.63) than their long-term average of 0.34, meaning their price movements have been converging.

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

Sectors
CEMA.L
PAXG.L

Technology

49.6%
1.1%

Financial Services

13.7%
46.1%

Consumer Cyclical

9.9%
6.0%

Industrials

7.2%
8.5%

Communication Services

6.5%
2.7%

Basic Materials

3.4%
14.6%

Healthcare

3.0%
3.7%

Energy

2.5%
2.9%

Consumer Defensive

2.2%
3.0%

Utilities

1.4%
3.6%

Real Estate

0.7%
7.8%

Technology

CEMA.L
49.6%
PAXG.L
1.1%

Financial Services

CEMA.L
13.7%
PAXG.L
46.1%

Consumer Cyclical

CEMA.L
9.9%
PAXG.L
6.0%

Industrials

CEMA.L
7.2%
PAXG.L
8.5%

Communication Services

CEMA.L
6.5%
PAXG.L
2.7%

Basic Materials

CEMA.L
3.4%
PAXG.L
14.6%

Healthcare

CEMA.L
3.0%
PAXG.L
3.7%

Energy

CEMA.L
2.5%
PAXG.L
2.9%

Consumer Defensive

CEMA.L
2.2%
PAXG.L
3.0%

Utilities

CEMA.L
1.4%
PAXG.L
3.6%

Real Estate

CEMA.L
0.7%
PAXG.L
7.8%

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

Lyxor MSCI Pacific Ex Japan UCITS

Often compared with CEMA.L:
CEMA.L vs. ESPS.LCEMA.L vs. ISAC.LCEMA.L vs. IKOR.LCEMA.L vs. CSP1.LCEMA.L vs. EIMI.LCEMA.L vs. LCAL.LCEMA.L vs. PAXJ.L
Often compared with PAXG.L:
PAXG.L vs. XDJP.LPAXG.L vs. CSJP.LPAXG.L vs. LCCN.LPAXG.L vs. AIL.DEPAXG.L vs. ESIF.LPAXG.L vs. FRQX.LPAXG.L vs. FRXT.L

Return for Risk

CEMA.L vs. PAXG.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: 8686
Overall Rank
CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8989
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8787
Omega Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8484
Martin Ratio Rank
PAXG.L
PAXG.L Risk / Return Rank: 3838
Overall Rank
PAXG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PAXG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3838
Sortino Ratio Rank
PAXG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
PAXG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4141
Calmar Ratio Rank
PAXG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3434
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. PAXG.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 Lyxor MSCI Pacific Ex Japan UCITS (PAXG.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.LPAXG.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
3.00
1.08

+1.92

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.93
1.64

+2.29

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.53

1.20

+0.34

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.58

1.60

+2.98

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

16.97

4.56

+12.41

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.00, which is higher than the PAXG.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEMA.L and PAXG.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

CEMA.LPAXG.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.00

1.08

+1.92

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.41

0.08

+0.33

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

0.33

+0.08

Drawdowns

CEMA.L vs. PAXG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEMA.L drawdown since its inception was -45.51%, which is greater than PAXG.L's maximum drawdown of -37.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEMA.L and PAXG.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CEMA.LPAXG.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-45.51%

-37.04%

-8.47%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.77%

-9.02%

-4.75%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.95%

-23.28%

+3.33%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-41.15%

-29.56%

-11.59%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.51%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.33%

-2.72%

+1.39%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-15.08%

-11.16%

-3.92%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.72%

3.17%

+0.55%

Volatility

CEMA.L vs. PAXG.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) has a higher volatility of 9.45% compared to Lyxor MSCI Pacific Ex Japan UCITS (PAXG.L) at 4.07%. This indicates that CEMA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PAXG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CEMA.LPAXG.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.45%

4.07%

+5.38%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

18.12%

10.89%

+7.23%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

21.02%

13.35%

+7.67%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.23%

21.70%

-1.47%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.95%

26.88%

-6.93%

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

CEMA.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than PAXG.L's 0.12% 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. PAXG.L - Dividend Comparison

CEMA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PAXG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.03%.

PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
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%
PAXG.L
Lyxor MSCI Pacific Ex Japan UCITS		0.03%0.03%0.06%0.04%0.04%0.04%0.03%0.04%0.04%0.03%0.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

CEMA.L and PAXG.L have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, PAXG.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

PAXG.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for CEMA.L.

CEMA.L tracks MSCI EM Asia Index Net, while PAXG.L tracks MSCI Pacific Ex Japan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for CEMA.L and 0.12% for PAXG.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CEMA.L and PAXG.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