PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EDEN vs. EWN
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EDEN vs. EWN - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EDEN achieves a 1.06% return, which is significantly lower than EWN's 18.79% return. Over the past 10 years, EDEN has underperformed EWN with an annualized return of 9.34%, while EWN has yielded a comparatively higher 13.52% annualized return.


EDEN

1D
-0.45%
1M
4.24%
6M
-4.06%
YTD
1.06%
1Y
2.46%
3Y*
3.61%
5Y*
2.39%
10Y*
9.34%

EWN

1D
-1.50%
1M
-2.84%
6M
10.99%
YTD
18.79%
1Y
29.27%
3Y*
17.53%
5Y*
9.14%
10Y*
13.52%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EDEN vs. EWN - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EDEN
iShares MSCI Denmark ETF
1.06%10.58%-3.94%17.99%-11.47%14.81%42.56%24.37%-14.43%35.39%
EWN
iShares MSCI Netherlands ETF
18.79%34.87%1.67%22.08%-24.43%22.74%23.23%32.45%-15.37%33.73%

Correlation

The correlation between EDEN and EWN is 0.58, 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

0.58

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

0.63

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

0.69

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

0.69

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 26, 2012

0.69

The correlation between EDEN and EWN shifts across timeframes, from 0.58 (1 year) to 0.69 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EDEN vs. EWN - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EDEN
EWN

Healthcare

37.9%
2.5%

Industrials

28.5%
11.4%

Financial Services

15.0%
17.9%

Basic Materials

4.7%
5.1%

Consumer Defensive

4.6%
10.1%

Utilities

3.1%

-

Consumer Cyclical

2.7%
5.9%

Technology

0.9%
34.6%

Energy

0.8%
2.0%

Communication Services

-

9.6%

Real Estate

-

0.7%

Healthcare

EDEN
37.9%
EWN
2.5%

Industrials

EDEN
28.5%
EWN
11.4%

Financial Services

EDEN
15.0%
EWN
17.9%

Basic Materials

EDEN
4.7%
EWN
5.1%

Consumer Defensive

EDEN
4.6%
EWN
10.1%

Utilities

EDEN
3.1%
EWN

-

Consumer Cyclical

EDEN
2.7%
EWN
5.9%

Technology

EDEN
0.9%
EWN
34.6%

Energy

EDEN
0.8%
EWN
2.0%

Communication Services

EDEN

-

EWN
9.6%

Real Estate

EDEN

-

EWN
0.7%

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

EDEN vs. EWN — Risk / Return Rank

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

EDEN
EDEN Risk / Return Rank: 1111
Overall Rank
EDEN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1111
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EDEN Sortino Ratio Rank: 1111
Sortino Ratio Rank
EDEN Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
EDEN Calmar Ratio Rank: 1111
Calmar Ratio Rank
EDEN Martin Ratio Rank: 1010
Martin Ratio Rank

EWN
EWN Risk / Return Rank: 5252
Overall Rank
EWN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4949
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EWN Sortino Ratio Rank: 4949
Sortino Ratio Rank
EWN Omega Ratio Rank: 4545
Omega Ratio Rank
EWN Calmar Ratio Rank: 5656
Calmar Ratio Rank
EWN Martin Ratio Rank: 5959
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.

EDEN vs. EWN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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


EDENEWNDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.24

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.66

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.04

1.24

-0.20

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.12

2.22

-2.10

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.25

8.21

-7.97

EDEN vs. EWN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EDEN Sharpe Ratio is 0.12, which is lower than the EWN Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EDEN and EWN, 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...

Drawdowns

EDEN vs. EWN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EDEN drawdown since its inception was -36.61%, smaller than the maximum EWN drawdown of -65.22%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EDEN and EWN.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EDENEWNDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.61%

-65.22%

+28.61%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-21.17%

-13.24%

-7.93%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-29.31%

-19.77%

-9.54%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-36.61%

-43.57%

+6.96%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.61%

-43.57%

+6.96%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-9.89%

-5.29%

-4.60%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.40%

-16.30%

+8.90%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

10.02%

3.57%

+6.45%

Volatility

EDEN vs. EWN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN) is 4.82%, while iShares MSCI Netherlands ETF (EWN) has a volatility of 9.30%. This indicates that EDEN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EWN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EDENEWNDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.82%

9.30%

-4.48%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.70%

18.64%

-2.94%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.73%

21.73%

-1.00%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.31%

23.26%

-2.95%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.17%

21.23%

-2.06%

EDEN vs. EWN - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

EDEN vs. EWN - Dividend Comparison

EDEN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.03%, less than EWN's 4.23% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EDEN
iShares MSCI Denmark ETF
3.03%2.79%1.50%1.92%1.47%0.74%0.42%2.36%2.01%2.03%1.28%1.46%
EWN
iShares MSCI Netherlands ETF
4.23%5.03%2.18%1.79%1.98%1.01%0.78%2.57%2.40%1.68%2.71%1.92%

Frequently Asked Questions


EDEN and EWN have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EWN has higher volatility (9.30%) compared to EDEN (4.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EDEN dropped -36.61% vs EWN's -65.22%.

On 10-year performance, EWN leads with 13.52% vs 9.34% for EDEN. On fees, EWN is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, EDEN has been the lower-risk option at 4.82%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, EWN has performed better with a 13.52% return vs 9.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

EWN has the higher dividend yield at 4.23%, compared with 3.03% for EDEN.

EDEN tracks MSCI Denmark IMI 25/50 Index, while EWN tracks MSCI Netherlands Investable Market Index. Their fees differ too: 0.53% for EDEN and 0.50% for EWN.

EWN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.36 vs 0.12), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EDEN and EWN

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