CWO.NEO vs. EMOP
CWO.NEO (iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF) and EMOP (AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. CWO.NEO is passively managed, while EMOP is actively managed. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CWO.NEO charges 0.73%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for EMOP.
Performance
CWO.NEO vs. EMOP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
CWO.NEO is traded in CAD, while EMOP is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the EMOP 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 13.80% return, which is significantly lower than EMOP's 34.25% return.
CWO.NEO
- 1D
- -1.42%
- 1M
- 4.14%
- YTD
- 13.80%
- 6M
- 13.05%
- 1Y
- 35.32%
- 3Y*
- 23.05%
- 5Y*
- 11.55%
- 10Y*
- 11.43%
EMOP
- 1D
- -0.32%
- 1M
- 11.03%
- YTD
- 34.25%
- 6M
- 34.42%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CWO.NEO vs. EMOP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CWO.NEO iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF | 13.80% | 16.50% |
EMOP AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF | 34.25% | 16.93% |
Correlation
The correlation between CWO.NEO and EMOP is 0.76, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 19, 2025 | 0.76 |
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. EMOP — Risk / Return Rank
CWO.NEO
EMOP
CWO.NEO vs. EMOP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF (CWO.NEO) and AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF (EMOP). 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 | EMOP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.43 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.26 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.37 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CWO.NEO | EMOP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.29 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.70 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.66 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.45 | 3.18 | -2.73 |
Drawdowns
CWO.NEO vs. EMOP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CWO.NEO drawdown since its inception was -31.99%, which is greater than EMOP's maximum drawdown of -11.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWO.NEO and EMOP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CWO.NEO | EMOP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -31.99% | -11.42% | -20.57% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.90% | — | — |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.42% | -0.32% | -1.10% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.29% | -1.81% | -8.48% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.86% | — | — |
Volatility
CWO.NEO vs. EMOP - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CWO.NEO | EMOP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.40% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.46% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.50% | 19.06% | -3.56% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.65% | 19.06% | -2.41% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.52% | 19.06% | -1.54% |
CWO.NEO vs. EMOP - Expense Ratio Comparison
CWO.NEO has a 0.73% expense ratio, which is higher than EMOP's 0.70% expense ratio.
Dividends
CWO.NEO vs. EMOP - Dividend Comparison
CWO.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.45%, more than EMOP's 0.82% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWO.NEO iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF | 2.45% | 2.79% | 3.50% | 4.14% | 5.03% | 4.61% | 2.64% | 3.01% | 3.22% | 2.60% | 2.57% | 3.23% |
EMOP AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF | 0.82% | 0.27% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CWO.NEO and EMOP have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, EMOP is cheaper at 0.70% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
EMOP is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.73% for CWO.NEO.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and AllianceBernstein. Their fees differ too: 0.73% for CWO.NEO and 0.70% for EMOP.
Find the right allocation for CWO.NEO and EMOP
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