EEM vs. CCLFX
EEM (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF) and CCLFX (Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund) are both funds - EEM is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Index (Net), while CCLFX is a High Yield Bonds fund managed by Cliffwater. Over the past 5 years, EEM returned 5.98%/yr vs 8.75%/yr for CCLFX. At a 0.12 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EEM charges 0.72%/yr vs 3.42%/yr for CCLFX.
Performance
EEM vs. CCLFX - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EEM achieves a 20.18% return, which is significantly higher than CCLFX's 2.33% return.
EEM
- 1D
- 1.80%
- 1M
- -3.22%
- YTD
- 20.18%
- 6M
- 22.10%
- 1Y
- 43.51%
- 3Y*
- 20.79%
- 5Y*
- 5.98%
- 10Y*
- 9.37%
CCLFX
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- 0.38%
- YTD
- 2.33%
- 6M
- 2.84%
- 1Y
- 7.37%
- 3Y*
- 10.54%
- 5Y*
- 8.75%
- 10Y*
- —
EEM vs. CCLFX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EEM iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF | 20.18% | 33.98% | 6.49% | 8.95% | -20.56% | -3.63% | 17.02% | 13.07% |
CCLFX Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund | 2.33% | 8.93% | 12.62% | 12.66% | 2.32% | 10.38% | 8.73% | 2.12% |
Correlation
The correlation between EEM and CCLFX is 0.05, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.05 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.12 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.10 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 6, 2019 | 0.12 |
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
EEM vs. CCLFX — Risk / Return Rank
EEM
CCLFX
EEM vs. CCLFX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) and Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund (CCLFX). 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.
| EEM | CCLFX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -6.53 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -18.18 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.39 | 7.79 | -6.40 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.23 | 39.22 | -35.99 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.20 | 218.79 | -206.59 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| EEM | CCLFX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.07 | 8.60 | -6.53 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.31 | 5.10 | -4.78 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.46 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.37 | 4.57 | -4.20 |
Drawdowns
EEM vs. CCLFX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EEM drawdown since its inception was -66.43%, which is greater than CCLFX's maximum drawdown of -3.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEM and CCLFX.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EEM | CCLFX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -66.43% | -3.91% | -62.52% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.52% | -0.19% | -13.33% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.29% | -0.46% | -16.83% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -37.49% | -2.25% | -35.24% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -39.82% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -7.13% | 0.00% | -7.13% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -16.01% | -0.16% | -15.85% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.58% | 0.03% | +3.55% |
Volatility
EEM vs. CCLFX - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) has a higher volatility of 10.60% compared to Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund (CCLFX) at 0.23%. This indicates that EEM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CCLFX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EEM | CCLFX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.60% | 0.23% | +10.37% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 18.87% | 0.65% | +18.22% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 21.19% | 0.87% | +20.32% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.16% | 1.73% | +17.43% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.62% | 1.87% | +18.75% |
EEM vs. CCLFX - Expense Ratio Comparison
EEM has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is lower than CCLFX's 3.42% expense ratio.
Dividends
EEM vs. CCLFX - Dividend Comparison
EEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.85%, less than CCLFX's 10.28% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CCLFX Cliffwater Corporate Lending Fund | 10.28% | 10.47% | 11.27% | 10.96% | 3.96% | 7.03% | 6.90% | 0.61% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
EEM iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF | 1.85% | 2.22% | 2.43% | 2.63% | 2.50% | 1.99% | 1.45% | 2.76% | 2.24% | 1.89% | 1.89% | 2.49% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EEM and CCLFX have a correlation of 0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
EEM has higher volatility (10.60%) compared to CCLFX (0.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEM dropped -66.43% vs CCLFX's -3.91%.
CCLFX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (8.60 vs 2.07), 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.
Find the right allocation for EEM and CCLFX
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