CNUA.L vs. CEMA.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

CNUA.L (UBS ETF (IE) MSCI China A SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc) and CEMA.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - CNUA.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while CEMA.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM Asia Index Net. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNUA.L returned 3.51%/yr vs 7.81%/yr for CEMA.L. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CNUA.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CEMA.L.

Performance

CNUA.L vs. CEMA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in UBS ETF (IE) MSCI China A SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (CNUA.L) and iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNUA.L achieves a 9.99% return, which is significantly lower than CEMA.L's 21.95% return.

CNUA.L

• 1D: -0.75%
• 1M: -2.47%
• 6M: 6.24%
• YTD: 9.99%
• 1Y: 34.20%
• 3Y*: 13.52%
• 5Y*: 3.51%
• 10Y*: —

CEMA.L

• 1D: -1.51%
• 1M: -7.88%
• 6M: 16.10%
• YTD: 21.95%
• 1Y: 38.53%
• 3Y*: 20.53%
• 5Y*: 7.81%
• 10Y*: 9.84%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CNUA.L UBS ETF (IE) MSCI China A SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc	9.99%	22.98%	16.55%	-16.32%	-14.88%	9.25%	8.63%
CEMA.L iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc	21.95%	24.43%	14.40%	1.32%	-12.13%	-4.43%	21.27%

Correlation

The correlation between CNUA.L and CEMA.L is 0.56, 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	0.56
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.47
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 18, 2020	0.54

The correlation between CNUA.L and CEMA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.47 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors	CNUA.L	CEMA.L
Technology	31.4%	54.6%
Financial Services	17.9%	13.4%
Industrials	15.2%	6.3%
Basic Materials	11.2%	3.1%
Consumer Defensive	6.8%	1.9%
Consumer Cyclical	5.3%	7.9%
Healthcare	3.9%	2.7%
Utilities	3.4%	1.2%
Energy	3.2%	2.2%
Communication Services	1.3%	6.0%
Real Estate	0.5%	0.6%

Return for Risk

CNUA.L vs. CEMA.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CNUA.L

CNUA.L Risk / Return Rank: 78
CNUA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
CNUA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
CNUA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 72
CNUA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
CNUA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 82

CEMA.L

CEMA.L Risk / Return Rank: 64
CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
CEMA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
CEMA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 63
CEMA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
CEMA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 64

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.

CNUA.L vs. CEMA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for UBS ETF (IE) MSCI China A SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (CNUA.L) and iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.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.

	CNUA.L	CEMA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.93	1.69	+0.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.62	2.28	+0.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.31	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.24	3.31	+0.93
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.83	9.37	+3.46

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

The current CNUA.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.93, which is comparable to the CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNUA.L and CEMA.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.

Drawdowns

CNUA.L vs. CEMA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNUA.L drawdown since its inception was -38.31%, which is greater than CEMA.L's maximum drawdown of -34.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNUA.L and CEMA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNUA.L	CEMA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.31%	-34.15%	-4.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.03%	-11.59%	+3.56%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.45%	-18.32%	-12.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.31%	-26.97%	-11.34%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.15%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.74%	-11.42%	+4.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.75%	-11.00%	-4.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.66%	4.10%	-1.44%

Volatility

CNUA.L vs. CEMA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for UBS ETF (IE) MSCI China A SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (CNUA.L) is 8.38%, while iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) has a volatility of 10.26%. This indicates that CNUA.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CEMA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNUA.L	CEMA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.38%	10.26%	-1.88%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.15%	20.57%	-7.42%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.65%	22.75%	-5.10%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.24%	19.18%	+6.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.95%	19.48%	+7.47%

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

CNUA.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than CEMA.L's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNUA.L vs. CEMA.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNUA.L and CEMA.L in my portfolio?

CNUA.L and CEMA.L have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CNUA.L or CEMA.L?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNUA.L or CEMA.L?

CEMA.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for CNUA.L.

What is the main difference between CNUA.L and CEMA.L?

CNUA.L is categorized as China Equities, while CEMA.L is Asia Pacific Equities. CNUA.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while CEMA.L tracks MSCI EM Asia Index Net. They also come from different issuers: UBS and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for CNUA.L and 0.20% for CEMA.L.