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

Performance

EDEN vs. NORW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN) and Global X MSCI Norway ETF (NORW). 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 -4.94% return, which is significantly lower than NORW's 26.31% return. Over the past 10 years, EDEN has underperformed NORW with an annualized return of 8.04%, while NORW has yielded a comparatively higher 9.61% annualized return.


EDEN

1D
-1.04%
1M
-0.76%
YTD
-4.94%
6M
-1.08%
1Y
-2.21%
3Y*
2.62%
5Y*
1.78%
10Y*
8.04%

NORW

1D
-0.52%
1M
-2.27%
YTD
26.31%
6M
31.64%
1Y
36.12%
3Y*
23.02%
5Y*
7.99%
10Y*
9.61%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EDEN vs. NORW - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EDEN
iShares MSCI Denmark ETF
-4.94%10.58%-3.94%17.99%-11.47%14.81%42.56%24.37%-14.43%35.39%
NORW
Global X MSCI Norway ETF
26.31%32.59%-2.50%5.03%-12.55%13.65%26.00%14.39%-10.39%24.03%

Correlation

The correlation between EDEN and NORW is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.39

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

0.46

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

0.55

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

0.63

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 27, 2012

0.67

Over the past year, the correlation between EDEN and NORW has dropped to 0.39 - well below their long-term average of 0.67, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

EDEN vs. NORW - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EDEN
NORW

Healthcare

34.8%

-

Industrials

31.3%
13.3%

Financial Services

16.2%
22.6%

Consumer Defensive

4.9%
12.5%

Basic Materials

4.8%
10.9%

Utilities

3.9%
0.7%

Consumer Cyclical

2.0%
0.2%

Technology

1.1%
4.1%

Energy

1.1%
29.4%

Communication Services

-

5.9%

Real Estate

-

0.4%

Healthcare

EDEN
34.8%
NORW

-

Industrials

EDEN
31.3%
NORW
13.3%

Financial Services

EDEN
16.2%
NORW
22.6%

Consumer Defensive

EDEN
4.9%
NORW
12.5%

Basic Materials

EDEN
4.8%
NORW
10.9%

Utilities

EDEN
3.9%
NORW
0.7%

Consumer Cyclical

EDEN
2.0%
NORW
0.2%

Technology

EDEN
1.1%
NORW
4.1%

Energy

EDEN
1.1%
NORW
29.4%

Communication Services

EDEN

-

NORW
5.9%

Real Estate

EDEN

-

NORW
0.4%

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. NORW — Risk / Return Rank

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

EDEN
EDEN Risk / Return Rank: 77
Overall Rank
EDEN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EDEN Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
Sortino Ratio Rank
EDEN Omega Ratio Rank: 77
Omega Ratio Rank
EDEN Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
Calmar Ratio Rank
EDEN Martin Ratio Rank: 88
Martin Ratio Rank

NORW
NORW Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
NORW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6565
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NORW Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
NORW Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
Omega Ratio Rank
NORW Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
NORW Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
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. NORW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN) and Global X MSCI Norway ETF (NORW). 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.


EDENNORWDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.29

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-3.00

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.00

1.37

-0.37

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.11

3.95

-4.06

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.22

11.27

-11.49

EDEN vs. NORW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EDEN Sharpe Ratio is -0.11, which is lower than the NORW Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EDEN and NORW, 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


EDENNORWDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.11

2.18

-2.29

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.09

0.37

-0.28

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.42

0.46

-0.05

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.64

0.40

+0.23

Drawdowns

EDEN vs. NORW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EDEN drawdown since its inception was -36.61%, roughly equal to the maximum NORW drawdown of -35.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EDEN and NORW.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EDENNORWDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.61%

-35.62%

-0.99%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-21.17%

-9.18%

-11.99%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-29.31%

-16.06%

-13.25%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-36.61%

-32.78%

-3.83%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.61%

-33.86%

-2.75%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-15.24%

-3.53%

-11.71%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.36%

-10.13%

+2.77%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

10.04%

3.21%

+6.83%

Volatility

EDEN vs. NORW - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN) has a higher volatility of 4.88% compared to Global X MSCI Norway ETF (NORW) at 4.06%. This indicates that EDEN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NORW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EDENNORWDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.88%

4.06%

+0.82%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.61%

12.73%

+2.88%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.92%

16.70%

+4.22%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.21%

21.88%

-1.67%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.43%

20.80%

-1.37%

EDEN vs. NORW - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

EDEN vs. NORW - Dividend Comparison

EDEN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.93%, more than NORW's 2.72% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EDEN
iShares MSCI Denmark ETF
2.93%2.79%1.50%1.92%1.47%0.74%0.42%2.36%2.01%2.03%1.28%1.46%
NORW
Global X MSCI Norway ETF
2.72%3.44%6.02%5.27%4.01%1.51%1.13%2.47%3.53%3.64%3.79%2.95%

Frequently Asked Questions


EDEN and NORW have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EDEN has higher volatility (4.88%) compared to NORW (4.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EDEN dropped -36.61% vs NORW's -35.62%.

On 10-year performance, NORW leads with 9.61% vs 8.04% for EDEN. On fees, NORW is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, NORW has been the lower-risk option at 4.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, NORW has performed better with a 9.61% return vs 8.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

EDEN has the higher dividend yield at 2.93%, compared with 2.72% for NORW.

EDEN tracks MSCI Denmark IMI 25/50 Index, while NORW tracks MSCI Norway IMI 25/50 Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.53% for EDEN and 0.50% for NORW.

NORW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.18 vs -0.11), 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 NORW

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