CWO.NEO vs. EMEQ

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CWO.NEO (iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF) and EMEQ (Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CWO.NEO is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the FTSE RAFI Emerging Markets Index, while EMEQ is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Nomura. CWO.NEO is passively managed, while EMEQ is actively managed. Over the past year, CWO.NEO returned 33.89% vs 159.15% for EMEQ. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CWO.NEO charges 0.73%/yr vs 0.86%/yr for EMEQ.

Performance

CWO.NEO vs. EMEQ - 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 Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CWO.NEO is traded in CAD, while EMEQ is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the EMEQ 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 13.27% return, which is significantly lower than EMEQ's 77.29% return.

CWO.NEO

• 1D: -0.47%
• 1M: 2.68%
• YTD: 13.27%
• 6M: 12.25%
• 1Y: 33.89%
• 3Y*: 22.83%
• 5Y*: 11.44%
• 10Y*: 11.24%

EMEQ

• 1D: -1.70%
• 1M: 19.10%
• YTD: 77.29%
• 6M: 86.27%
• 1Y: 159.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CWO.NEO vs. EMEQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CWO.NEO iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF	13.27%	26.34%	10.53%
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	77.29%	61.99%	5.26%

Correlation

The correlation between CWO.NEO and EMEQ is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 6, 2024	0.70

The correlation between CWO.NEO and EMEQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CWO.NEO vs. EMEQ — 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: 66
CWO.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
CWO.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
CWO.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 70
CWO.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
CWO.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 66

EMEQ

EMEQ Risk / Return Rank: 96
EMEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
EMEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
EMEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 95
EMEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
EMEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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. EMEQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF (CWO.NEO) and Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ). 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.

	CWO.NEO	EMEQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.20	5.11	-2.91
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.95	5.26	-2.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.76	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.12	9.76	-6.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.86	36.67	-24.81
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CWO.NEO vs. EMEQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CWO.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 2.20, which is lower than the EMEQ Sharpe Ratio of 5.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CWO.NEO and EMEQ, 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

	CWO.NEO	EMEQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.20	5.11	-2.91
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.64	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.45	3.10	-2.65

Drawdowns

CWO.NEO vs. EMEQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CWO.NEO drawdown since its inception was -31.99%, which is greater than EMEQ's maximum drawdown of -18.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWO.NEO and EMEQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	CWO.NEO	EMEQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.99%	-18.45%	-13.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.90%	-16.42%	+5.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.12%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.80%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-31.97%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.89%	-2.55%	+0.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.28%	-3.11%	-7.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.86%	4.36%	-1.50%

Volatility

CWO.NEO vs. EMEQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF (CWO.NEO) is 5.38%, while Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) has a volatility of 14.96%. This indicates that CWO.NEO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMEQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CWO.NEO	EMEQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.38%	14.96%	-9.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.46%	27.96%	-15.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.50%	31.40%	-15.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.64%	28.86%	-12.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.51%	28.86%	-11.35%

CWO.NEO vs. EMEQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

CWO.NEO has a 0.73% expense ratio, which is lower than EMEQ's 0.86% expense ratio.

Dividends

CWO.NEO vs. EMEQ - Dividend Comparison

CWO.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.46%, more than EMEQ's 1.58% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CWO.NEO iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF	2.46%	2.79%	3.50%	4.14%	5.03%	4.61%	2.64%	3.01%	3.22%	2.60%	2.57%	3.23%
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.58%	2.76%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CWO.NEO and EMEQ in my portfolio?

CWO.NEO and EMEQ have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CWO.NEO or EMEQ?

On fees, CWO.NEO is cheaper at 0.73% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CWO.NEO or EMEQ?

CWO.NEO is cheaper with a 0.73% expense ratio, compared with 0.86% for EMEQ.

What is the main difference between CWO.NEO and EMEQ?

CWO.NEO is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while EMEQ is Emerging Markets Diversified. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Nomura. Their fees differ too: 0.73% for CWO.NEO and 0.86% for EMEQ.