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

Performance

CWO.NEO vs. XEM.TO - 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 iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index ETF (XEM.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CWO.NEO achieves a 13.80% return, which is significantly lower than XEM.TO's 29.23% return. Over the past 10 years, CWO.NEO has outperformed XEM.TO with an annualized return of 11.43%, while XEM.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 10.27% annualized 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%

XEM.TO

1D
-0.85%
1M
11.30%
YTD
29.23%
6M
29.57%
1Y
57.02%
3Y*
24.75%
5Y*
9.57%
10Y*
10.27%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CWO.NEO vs. XEM.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CWO.NEO
iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF
13.80%26.34%22.33%9.56%-9.03%7.13%-3.12%10.86%-0.29%17.16%
XEM.TO
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index ETF
29.23%27.25%14.98%6.49%-15.74%-4.09%14.12%11.48%-8.05%27.78%

Correlation

The correlation between CWO.NEO and XEM.TO is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


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

0.83

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

0.73

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

0.64

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

0.69

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2009

0.74

The correlation between CWO.NEO and XEM.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.64 (5 years) to 0.83 (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. XEM.TO — 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

XEM.TO
XEM.TO Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
XEM.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8888
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XEM.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
XEM.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 8787
Omega Ratio Rank
XEM.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 8585
Calmar Ratio Rank
XEM.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
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. XEM.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF (CWO.NEO) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index ETF (XEM.TO). 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.NEOXEM.TODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.68

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.79

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.43

1.55

-0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.26

4.67

-1.41

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.37

17.00

-4.63

CWO.NEO vs. XEM.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CWO.NEO Sharpe Ratio is 2.29, which is comparable to the XEM.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CWO.NEO and XEM.TO, 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.NEOXEM.TODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.29

2.97

-0.68

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.70

0.58

+0.12

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.66

0.57

+0.08

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.45

0.43

+0.02

Drawdowns

CWO.NEO vs. XEM.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CWO.NEO drawdown since its inception was -31.99%, smaller than the maximum XEM.TO drawdown of -35.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWO.NEO and XEM.TO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CWO.NEOXEM.TODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-31.99%

-35.29%

+3.30%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.90%

-12.27%

+1.37%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.12%

-15.30%

-1.82%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.80%

-31.08%

+6.28%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-31.97%

-35.29%

+3.32%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.42%

-0.85%

-0.57%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.29%

-10.45%

+0.16%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.86%

3.36%

-0.50%

Volatility

CWO.NEO vs. XEM.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF (CWO.NEO) is 5.40%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index ETF (XEM.TO) has a volatility of 8.30%. This indicates that CWO.NEO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XEM.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CWO.NEOXEM.TODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.40%

8.30%

-2.90%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.46%

16.79%

-4.33%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.50%

19.28%

-3.78%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.65%

16.84%

-0.19%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.52%

18.12%

-0.60%

CWO.NEO vs. XEM.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CWO.NEO has a 0.73% expense ratio, which is lower than XEM.TO's 0.81% expense ratio.


Dividends

CWO.NEO vs. XEM.TO - Dividend Comparison

CWO.NEO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.45%, more than XEM.TO's 1.47% 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%
XEM.TO
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Index ETF
1.47%1.90%2.08%2.39%2.10%1.91%1.28%2.57%1.96%1.78%1.96%2.22%

Frequently Asked Questions


CWO.NEO and XEM.TO have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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.

CWO.NEO is cheaper with a 0.73% expense ratio, compared with 0.81% for XEM.TO.

CWO.NEO tracks FTSE RAFI Emerging Markets Index, while XEM.TO tracks Morningstar EM GR CAD. Their fees differ too: 0.73% for CWO.NEO and 0.81% for XEM.TO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CWO.NEO and XEM.TO

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