PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CEMA.L vs. XKS2.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CEMA.L vs. XKS2.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CEMA.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc) and XKS2.L (Xtrackers MSCI Korea UCITS ETF 1C) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - CEMA.L tracks the MSCI EM Asia Index Net while XKS2.L tracks the MSCI Korea NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CEMA.L returned 11.62%/yr vs 17.85%/yr for XKS2.L. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CEMA.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for XKS2.L.

Performance

CEMA.L vs. XKS2.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 Xtrackers MSCI Korea UCITS ETF 1C (XKS2.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CEMA.L is traded in USD, while XKS2.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the XKS2.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 lower than XKS2.L's 117.37% return. Over the past 10 years, CEMA.L has underperformed XKS2.L with an annualized return of 11.62%, while XKS2.L has yielded a comparatively higher 17.85% 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%

XKS2.L

1D
-0.67%
1M
30.27%
YTD
117.37%
6M
137.46%
1Y
259.86%
3Y*
51.32%
5Y*
19.80%
10Y*
17.85%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CEMA.L vs. XKS2.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%
XKS2.L
Xtrackers MSCI Korea UCITS ETF 1C		117.37%99.81%-22.97%19.42%-28.16%-8.05%42.89%11.66%-21.26%45.20%

Correlation

The correlation between CEMA.L and XKS2.L is 0.80, 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

0.80

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

0.75

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

0.76

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

0.79

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2010

0.71

The correlation between CEMA.L and XKS2.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

CEMA.L vs. XKS2.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CEMA.L
XKS2.L

Technology

49.6%
56.0%

Financial Services

13.7%
9.2%

Consumer Cyclical

9.9%
5.7%

Industrials

7.2%
18.7%

Communication Services

6.5%
2.6%

Basic Materials

3.4%
2.0%

Healthcare

3.0%
3.0%

Energy

2.5%
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

2.2%
1.4%

Utilities

1.4%
0.4%

Real Estate

0.7%

-

Technology

CEMA.L
49.6%
XKS2.L
56.0%

Financial Services

CEMA.L
13.7%
XKS2.L
9.2%

Consumer Cyclical

CEMA.L
9.9%
XKS2.L
5.7%

Industrials

CEMA.L
7.2%
XKS2.L
18.7%

Communication Services

CEMA.L
6.5%
XKS2.L
2.6%

Basic Materials

CEMA.L
3.4%
XKS2.L
2.0%

Healthcare

CEMA.L
3.0%
XKS2.L
3.0%

Energy

CEMA.L
2.5%
XKS2.L
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

CEMA.L
2.2%
XKS2.L
1.4%

Utilities

CEMA.L
1.4%
XKS2.L
0.4%

Real Estate

CEMA.L
0.7%
XKS2.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

Xtrackers MSCI Korea UCITS ETF 1C

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 XKS2.L:
XKS2.L vs. LDAG.LXKS2.L vs. HMXD.LXKS2.L vs. AUAD.LXKS2.L vs. UB20.LXKS2.L vs. APEX.LXKS2.L vs. FLRK.LXKS2.L vs. PADV.L

Return for Risk

CEMA.L vs. XKS2.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
XKS2.L
XKS2.L Risk / Return Rank: 9797
Overall Rank
XKS2.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9999
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XKS2.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9797
Sortino Ratio Rank
XKS2.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9797
Omega Ratio Rank
XKS2.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9797
Calmar Ratio Rank
XKS2.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9797
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. XKS2.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 Xtrackers MSCI Korea UCITS ETF 1C (XKS2.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.LXKS2.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
3.00
6.76

-3.76

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.93
6.03

-2.10

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.53

1.87

-0.34

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.58

11.29

-6.71

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

16.97

42.16

-25.19

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. XKS2.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.00, which is lower than the XKS2.L Sharpe Ratio of 6.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEMA.L and XKS2.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.LXKS2.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.00

6.76

-3.76

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.41

0.72

-0.31

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.58

0.69

-0.11

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.41

0.28

+0.13

Drawdowns

CEMA.L vs. XKS2.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEMA.L drawdown since its inception was -45.51%, smaller than the maximum XKS2.L drawdown of -71.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEMA.L and XKS2.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CEMA.LXKS2.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-45.51%

-71.36%

+25.85%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.77%

-22.86%

+9.09%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.95%

-29.16%

+9.21%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-41.15%

-48.56%

+7.41%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.51%

-50.13%

+4.62%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.33%

-0.67%

-0.66%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-15.08%

-21.40%

+6.32%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.72%

6.13%

-2.41%

Volatility

CEMA.L vs. XKS2.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) is 9.45%, while Xtrackers MSCI Korea UCITS ETF 1C (XKS2.L) has a volatility of 17.73%. This indicates that CEMA.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XKS2.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CEMA.LXKS2.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.45%

17.73%

-8.28%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

18.12%

33.14%

-15.02%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

21.02%

38.20%

-17.18%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.23%

27.34%

-7.11%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.95%

25.89%

-5.94%

CEMA.L vs. XKS2.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEMA.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than XKS2.L's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEMA.L vs. XKS2.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CEMA.L nor XKS2.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

CEMA.L and XKS2.L have a correlation of 0.80, 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 0.65% for XKS2.L.

CEMA.L tracks MSCI EM Asia Index Net, while XKS2.L tracks MSCI Korea NR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for CEMA.L and 0.65% for XKS2.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CEMA.L and XKS2.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