CEMG.L vs. TRIP.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CEMG.L (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Consumer Growth UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and TRIP.L (HANetf The Travel UCITS ETF) are both Consumer Staples Equities funds tracking the Cat 50%MSCI Wld/CD NR&50%MSCI Wld/CS NR, from iShares and HANetf respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CEMG.L returned 5.85%/yr vs 16.92%/yr for TRIP.L. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CEMG.L charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for TRIP.L.

Performance

CEMG.L vs. TRIP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Consumer Growth UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CEMG.L) and HANetf The Travel UCITS ETF (TRIP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CEMG.L is traded in USD, while TRIP.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the TRIP.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEMG.L achieves a -7.56% return, which is significantly lower than TRIP.L's -3.93% return.

CEMG.L

• 1D: -0.10%
• 1M: -0.99%
• YTD: -7.56%
• 6M: -8.07%
• 1Y: -6.47%
• 3Y*: 5.85%
• 5Y*: -3.07%
• 10Y*: 3.80%

TRIP.L

• 1D: 0.48%
• 1M: 6.00%
• YTD: -3.93%
• 6M: 2.16%
• 1Y: 13.57%
• 3Y*: 16.92%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CEMG.L vs. TRIP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CEMG.L iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Consumer Growth UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	-7.56%	13.16%	10.30%	5.13%	-21.91%	-9.66%
TRIP.L HANetf The Travel UCITS ETF	-3.93%	18.47%	26.32%	30.10%	-19.22%	-39.22%

Correlation

The correlation between CEMG.L and TRIP.L is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 7, 2021	0.58

The correlation between CEMG.L and TRIP.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

CEMG.L vs. TRIP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CEMG.L	TRIP.L
Consumer Cyclical	48.8%	50.6%
Consumer Defensive	27.4%	-
Communication Services	13.6%	-
Healthcare	5.5%	-
Technology	3.5%	2.6%
Industrials	1.2%	46.7%
Financial Services	0.1%	-
Real Estate	0.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Energy	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

CEMG.L vs. TRIP.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CEMG.L

CEMG.L Risk / Return Rank: 5
CEMG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
CEMG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
CEMG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5
CEMG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
CEMG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5

TRIP.L

TRIP.L Risk / Return Rank: 17
TRIP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
TRIP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
TRIP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 25
TRIP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
TRIP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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.

CEMG.L vs. TRIP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Consumer Growth UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CEMG.L) and HANetf The Travel UCITS ETF (TRIP.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.

	CEMG.L	TRIP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.44	0.28	-0.72
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.55	0.84	-1.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.94	1.15	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.43	0.45	-0.89
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.98	0.74	-1.71
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CEMG.L vs. TRIP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEMG.L Sharpe Ratio is -0.44, which is lower than the TRIP.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEMG.L and TRIP.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CEMG.L	TRIP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.44	0.28	-0.72
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.15	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.19	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.15	-0.04	+0.19

Drawdowns

CEMG.L vs. TRIP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEMG.L drawdown since its inception was -46.10%, smaller than the maximum TRIP.L drawdown of -58.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEMG.L and TRIP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEMG.L	TRIP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-46.10%	-58.04%	+11.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.90%	-29.75%	+14.85%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.50%	-31.76%	+16.26%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-42.17%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.10%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.17%	-22.40%	+0.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.32%	-35.16%	+18.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.61%	18.40%	-11.79%

Volatility

CEMG.L vs. TRIP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Consumer Growth UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CEMG.L) is 4.47%, while HANetf The Travel UCITS ETF (TRIP.L) has a volatility of 7.82%. This indicates that CEMG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TRIP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CEMG.L	TRIP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.47%	7.82%	-3.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.10%	18.86%	-6.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.62%	48.67%	-34.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.36%	40.90%	-20.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.49%	40.90%	-21.41%

CEMG.L vs. TRIP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEMG.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than TRIP.L's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEMG.L vs. TRIP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CEMG.L nor TRIP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CEMG.L and TRIP.L in my portfolio?

CEMG.L and TRIP.L have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CEMG.L or TRIP.L?

On fees, CEMG.L is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CEMG.L or TRIP.L?

CEMG.L is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for TRIP.L.

What is the main difference between CEMG.L and TRIP.L?

Both ETFs track Cat 50%MSCI Wld/CD NR&50%MSCI Wld/CS NR. They also come from different issuers: iShares and HANetf. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for CEMG.L and 0.69% for TRIP.L.