COST vs. IEMG
COST (Costco Wholesale Corporation) is a stock, while IEMG (iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF) is Emerging Markets Diversified fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index (USD) (Net). Over the past 10 years, COST returned 22.27%/yr vs 10.42%/yr for IEMG. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
COST vs. IEMG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, COST achieves a 14.24% return, which is significantly lower than IEMG's 22.84% return. Over the past 10 years, COST has outperformed IEMG with an annualized return of 22.27%, while IEMG has yielded a comparatively lower 10.42% annualized return.
COST
- 1D
- 0.68%
- 1M
- -5.66%
- YTD
- 14.24%
- 6M
- 11.38%
- 1Y
- -0.24%
- 3Y*
- 25.12%
- 5Y*
- 22.12%
- 10Y*
- 22.27%
IEMG
- 1D
- 0.61%
- 1M
- 0.34%
- YTD
- 22.84%
- 6M
- 25.59%
- 1Y
- 44.83%
- 3Y*
- 21.33%
- 5Y*
- 7.15%
- 10Y*
- 10.42%
COST vs. IEMG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
COST Costco Wholesale Corporation | 14.24% | -5.39% | 39.62% | 49.00% | -19.05% | 51.82% | 32.67% | 45.70% | 10.60% | 22.37% |
IEMG iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF | 22.84% | 32.56% | 6.50% | 11.52% | -19.98% | -0.64% | 17.87% | 17.81% | -14.92% | 37.38% |
Correlation
The correlation between COST and IEMG is -0.10, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.10 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.15 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.21 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.27 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2012 | 0.30 |
The correlation between COST and IEMG shifts across timeframes, from -0.10 (1 year) to 0.30 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
COST vs. IEMG — Risk / Return Rank
COST
IEMG
COST vs. IEMG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG). 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.
| COST | IEMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.10 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.63 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.00 | 1.39 | -0.38 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.10 | 3.23 | -3.33 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.22 | 11.89 | -12.11 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
COST vs. IEMG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum COST drawdown since its inception was -53.39%, which is greater than IEMG's maximum drawdown of -38.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for COST and IEMG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| COST | IEMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -53.39% | -38.71% | -14.68% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.14% | -13.21% | -1.93% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -20.74% | -17.21% | -3.53% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -31.40% | -35.75% | +4.35% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -31.40% | -38.71% | +7.31% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -10.23% | -3.98% | -6.25% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -13.36% | -12.95% | -0.41% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.67% | 3.59% | +3.08% |
Volatility
COST vs. IEMG - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) is 7.44%, while iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG) has a volatility of 10.60%. This indicates that COST experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IEMG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| COST | IEMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.44% | 10.60% | -3.16% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.53% | 18.89% | -4.36% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.80% | 21.08% | -2.28% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.72% | 18.73% | +3.99% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.95% | 20.17% | +1.78% |
Dividends
COST vs. IEMG - Dividend Comparison
COST's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.55%, less than IEMG's 2.24% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
COST Costco Wholesale Corporation | 0.55% | 0.59% | 0.49% | 2.87% | 0.76% | 0.54% | 3.38% | 0.86% | 1.08% | 4.81% | 1.09% | 4.06% |
IEMG iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF | 2.24% | 2.75% | 3.20% | 2.89% | 2.71% | 3.06% | 1.87% | 3.15% | 2.76% | 2.35% | 2.28% | 2.53% |
Frequently Asked Questions
COST and IEMG have a correlation of -0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IEMG has higher volatility (10.60%) compared to COST (7.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, COST dropped -53.39% vs IEMG's -38.71%.
IEMG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs -0.08), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for COST and IEMG
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