EDEN vs. ENZL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EDEN (iShares MSCI Denmark ETF) and ENZL (iShares MSCI New Zealand ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EDEN is a Europe Equities fund tracking the MSCI Denmark IMI 25/50 Index, while ENZL is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI New Zealand Investable Market Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EDEN returned 9.32%/yr vs 3.47%/yr for ENZL. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EDEN charges 0.53%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for ENZL.

Performance

EDEN vs. ENZL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN) and iShares MSCI New Zealand ETF (ENZL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EDEN achieves a -3.46% return, which is significantly lower than ENZL's -1.49% return. Over the past 10 years, EDEN has outperformed ENZL with an annualized return of 9.32%, while ENZL has yielded a comparatively lower 3.47% annualized return.

EDEN

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: -1.76%
• YTD: -3.46%
• 6M: -3.93%
• 1Y: -0.63%
• 3Y*: 3.19%
• 5Y*: 2.15%
• 10Y*: 9.32%

ENZL

• 1D: -1.26%
• 1M: 0.18%
• YTD: -1.49%
• 6M: -2.07%
• 1Y: 0.68%
• 3Y*: -0.31%
• 5Y*: -4.30%
• 10Y*: 3.47%

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

EDEN vs. ENZL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EDEN iShares MSCI Denmark ETF	-3.46%	10.58%	-3.94%	17.99%	-11.47%	14.81%	42.56%	24.37%	-14.43%	35.39%
ENZL iShares MSCI New Zealand ETF	-1.49%	2.47%	-4.86%	2.95%	-16.18%	-11.39%	20.04%	30.09%	0.35%	24.04%

Correlation

The correlation between EDEN and ENZL is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.45
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.39
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.42
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.43
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 26, 2012	0.41

EDEN vs. ENZL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EDEN	ENZL
Healthcare	36.0%	29.3%
Industrials	29.4%	31.4%
Financial Services	15.8%	1.4%
Consumer Defensive	4.7%	1.3%
Basic Materials	4.7%	3.8%
Utilities	3.2%	12.9%
Consumer Cyclical	2.5%	1.0%
Energy	1.0%	1.9%
Technology	0.9%	0.5%
Communication Services	-	4.0%
Real Estate	-	12.9%

Return for Risk

EDEN vs. ENZL — Risk / Return Rank

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

EDEN

EDEN Risk / Return Rank: 8
EDEN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
EDEN Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
EDEN Omega Ratio Rank: 8
EDEN Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
EDEN Martin Ratio Rank: 8

ENZL

ENZL Risk / Return Rank: 9
ENZL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
ENZL Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
ENZL Omega Ratio Rank: 9
ENZL Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
ENZL Martin Ratio Rank: 9

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.

EDEN vs. ENZL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN) and iShares MSCI New Zealand ETF (ENZL). 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.

	EDEN	ENZL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.03	0.04	-0.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.10	0.17	-0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.02	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.03	0.05	-0.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.06	0.15	-0.21

EDEN vs. ENZL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EDEN Sharpe Ratio is -0.03, which is lower than the ENZL Sharpe Ratio of 0.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EDEN and ENZL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

EDEN vs. ENZL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EDEN drawdown since its inception was -36.61%, smaller than the maximum ENZL drawdown of -42.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EDEN and ENZL.

Drawdown Indicators

	EDEN	ENZL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.61%	-42.44%	+5.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.17%	-12.90%	-8.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.31%	-20.67%	-8.64%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-36.61%	-36.86%	+0.25%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.61%	-42.44%	+5.83%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.92%	-30.28%	+16.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.38%	-12.83%	+5.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.81%	4.70%	+5.11%

Volatility

EDEN vs. ENZL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN) is 4.76%, while iShares MSCI New Zealand ETF (ENZL) has a volatility of 5.59%. This indicates that EDEN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ENZL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EDEN	ENZL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.76%	5.59%	-0.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.73%	13.45%	+2.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.72%	15.84%	+4.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.27%	18.63%	+1.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.23%	20.42%	-1.19%

EDEN vs. ENZL - Expense Ratio Comparison

EDEN has a 0.53% expense ratio, which is higher than ENZL's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

EDEN vs. ENZL - Dividend Comparison

EDEN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.17%, more than ENZL's 2.29% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EDEN iShares MSCI Denmark ETF	3.17%	2.79%	1.50%	1.92%	1.47%	0.74%	0.42%	2.36%	2.01%	2.03%	1.28%	1.46%
ENZL iShares MSCI New Zealand ETF	2.29%	2.23%	2.13%	3.00%	1.62%	2.46%	1.66%	3.35%	3.60%	3.69%	4.79%	4.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EDEN and ENZL in my portfolio?

EDEN and ENZL have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EDEN or ENZL?

ENZL has higher volatility (5.59%) compared to EDEN (4.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EDEN dropped -36.61% vs ENZL's -42.44%.

Which ETF is better, EDEN or ENZL?

On 10-year performance, EDEN leads with 9.32% vs 3.47% for ENZL. On fees, ENZL is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, EDEN has been the lower-risk option at 4.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EDEN or ENZL?

Over the 10-year period, EDEN has performed better with a 9.32% return vs 3.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EDEN or ENZL?

ENZL is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for EDEN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EDEN or ENZL?

EDEN has the higher dividend yield at 3.17%, compared with 2.29% for ENZL.

What is the main difference between EDEN and ENZL?

EDEN is categorized as Europe Equities, while ENZL is Asia Pacific Equities. EDEN tracks MSCI Denmark IMI 25/50 Index, while ENZL tracks MSCI New Zealand Investable Market Index. Their fees differ too: 0.53% for EDEN and 0.50% for ENZL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ENZL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.04 vs -0.03), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.