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

Performance

CWO.NEO vs. FRDM - 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 Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CWO.NEO is traded in CAD, while FRDM is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the FRDM 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 FRDM's 46.46% 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%

FRDM

1D
-0.89%
1M
19.40%
YTD
46.46%
6M
52.57%
1Y
100.00%
3Y*
38.67%
5Y*
22.71%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CWO.NEO vs. FRDM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
CWO.NEO
iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF
13.80%26.34%22.33%9.56%-9.03%7.13%-3.12%9.87%
FRDM
Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF
46.46%53.88%10.44%20.07%-8.35%5.17%14.93%8.17%

Correlation

The correlation between CWO.NEO and FRDM is 0.69, 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

0.69

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

0.57

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

0.52

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 24, 2019

0.55

The correlation between CWO.NEO and FRDM shifts across timeframes, from 0.52 (5 years) to 0.69 (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. FRDM — 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: 6868
Overall Rank
CWO.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 6868
Martin Ratio Rank

FRDM
FRDM Risk / Return Rank: 9393
Overall Rank
FRDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9595
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FRDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 9393
Sortino Ratio Rank
FRDM Omega Ratio Rank: 9393
Omega Ratio Rank
FRDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 9191
Calmar Ratio Rank
FRDM Martin Ratio Rank: 9292
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. FRDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF (CWO.NEO) and Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM). 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.NEOFRDMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.95

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.90

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.72

-0.29

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.26

6.55

-3.29

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.37

25.28

-12.90

CWO.NEO vs. FRDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CWO.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 2.29, which is lower than the FRDM Sharpe Ratio of 4.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CWO.NEO and FRDM, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CWO.NEOFRDMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.29

4.25

-1.95

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.70

1.25

-0.56

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

1.00

-0.55

Drawdowns

CWO.NEO vs. FRDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CWO.NEO drawdown since its inception was -31.99%, smaller than the maximum FRDM drawdown of -33.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWO.NEO and FRDM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CWO.NEOFRDMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-31.99%

-33.94%

+1.95%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.90%

-15.35%

+4.45%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.12%

-15.35%

-1.77%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.80%

-22.15%

-2.65%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-31.97%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.42%

-0.89%

-0.53%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.29%

-5.55%

-4.74%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.86%

3.97%

-1.11%

Volatility

CWO.NEO vs. FRDM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF (CWO.NEO) is 5.40%, while Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM) has a volatility of 10.89%. This indicates that CWO.NEO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FRDM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CWO.NEOFRDMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.40%

10.89%

-5.49%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.46%

21.00%

-8.54%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.50%

23.69%

-8.19%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.65%

18.21%

-1.56%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.52%

19.96%

-2.44%

CWO.NEO vs. FRDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CWO.NEO has a 0.73% expense ratio, which is higher than FRDM's 0.49% expense ratio.


Dividends

CWO.NEO vs. FRDM - Dividend Comparison

CWO.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.45%, more than FRDM's 1.51% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
FRDM
Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF
1.51%2.26%2.53%2.66%2.72%2.17%1.11%1.07%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


CWO.NEO and FRDM have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, FRDM is cheaper at 0.49% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

FRDM is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.73% for CWO.NEO.

CWO.NEO is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while FRDM is Emerging Markets Diversified. CWO.NEO tracks FTSE RAFI Emerging Markets Index, while FRDM tracks Life + Liberty Freedom 100 Emerging Markets Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Freedom Funds. Their fees differ too: 0.73% for CWO.NEO and 0.49% for FRDM.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CWO.NEO and FRDM

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