PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CWO.NEO vs. BRF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CWO.NEO vs. BRF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF (CWO.NEO) and VanEck Vectors Brazil Small-Cap ETF (BRF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CWO.NEO is traded in CAD, while BRF is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the BRF values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CWO.NEO achieves a 11.04% return, which is significantly higher than BRF's 6.33% return. Over the past 10 years, CWO.NEO has outperformed BRF with an annualized return of 10.45%, while BRF has yielded a comparatively lower 5.76% annualized return.


CWO.NEO

1D
0.36%
1M
-0.36%
YTD
11.04%
6M
11.02%
1Y
27.50%
3Y*
21.56%
5Y*
11.09%
10Y*
10.45%

BRF

1D
-0.32%
1M
-3.91%
YTD
6.33%
6M
5.48%
1Y
17.13%
3Y*
4.07%
5Y*
-0.57%
10Y*
5.76%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CWO.NEO vs. BRF - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CWO.NEO
iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF
11.04%26.34%22.33%9.56%-9.03%7.13%-3.12%10.86%-0.29%17.16%
BRF
VanEck Vectors Brazil Small-Cap ETF
6.33%47.14%-29.52%33.94%-8.95%-20.44%-22.94%34.86%-4.67%44.16%

Correlation

The correlation between CWO.NEO and BRF is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.49

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

0.39

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

0.34

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

0.41

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 14, 2009

0.49

The correlation between CWO.NEO and BRF shifts across timeframes, from 0.34 (5 years) to 0.49 (1 year), 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

CWO.NEO vs. BRF — Risk / Return Rank

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

CWO.NEO
CWO.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 6060
Overall Rank
CWO.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 6464
Omega Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 6161
Martin Ratio Rank

BRF
BRF Risk / Return Rank: 1616
Overall Rank
BRF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1616
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BRF Sortino Ratio Rank: 1616
Sortino Ratio Rank
BRF Omega Ratio Rank: 1616
Omega Ratio Rank
BRF Calmar Ratio Rank: 1717
Calmar Ratio Rank
BRF Martin Ratio Rank: 1818
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.

CWO.NEO vs. BRF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF (CWO.NEO) and VanEck Vectors Brazil Small-Cap ETF (BRF). 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.


CWO.NEOBRFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.10

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.35

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.12

+0.21

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.55

0.98

+1.56

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.18

2.44

+6.74

CWO.NEO vs. BRF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CWO.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 1.70, which is higher than the BRF Sharpe Ratio of 0.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CWO.NEO and BRF, 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...

Drawdowns

CWO.NEO vs. BRF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CWO.NEO drawdown since its inception was -31.99%, smaller than the maximum BRF drawdown of -74.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWO.NEO and BRF.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CWO.NEOBRFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-31.99%

-74.57%

+42.58%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.90%

-17.48%

+6.58%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.12%

-32.46%

+15.34%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.80%

-41.53%

+16.73%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-31.97%

-57.12%

+25.15%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.82%

-29.49%

+25.67%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.26%

-36.46%

+26.20%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.01%

7.09%

-4.08%

Volatility

CWO.NEO vs. BRF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF (CWO.NEO) is 6.80%, while VanEck Vectors Brazil Small-Cap ETF (BRF) has a volatility of 8.00%. This indicates that CWO.NEO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BRF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CWO.NEOBRFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.80%

8.00%

-1.20%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.73%

23.38%

-9.65%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.35%

28.85%

-12.50%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.87%

32.26%

-15.39%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.46%

34.36%

-16.90%

CWO.NEO vs. BRF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CWO.NEO has a 0.73% expense ratio, which is higher than BRF's 0.60% expense ratio.


Dividends

CWO.NEO vs. BRF - Dividend Comparison

CWO.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.68%, less than BRF's 5.41% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BRF
VanEck Vectors Brazil Small-Cap ETF
5.41%5.54%4.08%5.02%4.13%2.96%1.66%2.54%2.89%4.53%4.25%3.84%
CWO.NEO
iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF
2.68%2.79%3.50%4.14%5.03%4.61%2.64%3.01%3.22%2.60%2.57%3.23%

Frequently Asked Questions


CWO.NEO and BRF have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

BRF is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.73% for CWO.NEO.

CWO.NEO is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while BRF is Latin America Equities. CWO.NEO tracks FTSE RAFI Emerging Markets Index, while BRF tracks MVIS Brazil Small-Cap Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.73% for CWO.NEO and 0.60% for BRF.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CWO.NEO and BRF

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