PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EEMA vs. AIA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EEMA vs. AIA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) and iShares Asia 50 ETF (AIA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EEMA achieves a 27.78% return, which is significantly lower than AIA's 52.67% return. Over the past 10 years, EEMA has underperformed AIA with an annualized return of 10.80%, while AIA has yielded a comparatively higher 15.48% annualized return.


EEMA

1D
-1.17%
1M
9.00%
YTD
27.78%
6M
30.96%
1Y
56.77%
3Y*
24.08%
5Y*
7.05%
10Y*
10.80%

AIA

1D
-1.19%
1M
18.04%
YTD
52.67%
6M
57.46%
1Y
100.69%
3Y*
38.58%
5Y*
12.42%
10Y*
15.48%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EEMA vs. AIA - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EEMA
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF
27.78%33.27%10.23%6.57%-21.49%-4.22%25.17%18.60%-15.76%43.41%
AIA
iShares Asia 50 ETF
52.67%47.79%20.26%4.32%-24.08%-10.91%33.73%22.21%-14.22%45.00%

Correlation

The correlation between EEMA and AIA is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.


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

0.96

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

0.94

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

0.95

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

0.95

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 10, 2012

0.92

The correlation between EEMA and AIA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

EEMA vs. AIA - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EEMA
AIA

Technology

41.2%
56.8%

Financial Services

15.9%
19.3%

Consumer Cyclical

11.3%
10.1%

Industrials

8.8%
2.6%

Communication Services

6.0%
8.9%

Basic Materials

4.5%

-

Healthcare

3.7%
0.9%

Energy

3.2%
0.7%

Consumer Defensive

2.8%

-

Utilities

1.8%

-

Real Estate

0.8%
0.6%

Technology

EEMA
41.2%
AIA
56.8%

Financial Services

EEMA
15.9%
AIA
19.3%

Consumer Cyclical

EEMA
11.3%
AIA
10.1%

Industrials

EEMA
8.8%
AIA
2.6%

Communication Services

EEMA
6.0%
AIA
8.9%

Basic Materials

EEMA
4.5%
AIA

-

Healthcare

EEMA
3.7%
AIA
0.9%

Energy

EEMA
3.2%
AIA
0.7%

Consumer Defensive

EEMA
2.8%
AIA

-

Utilities

EEMA
1.8%
AIA

-

Real Estate

EEMA
0.8%
AIA
0.6%

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

EEMA vs. AIA — Risk / Return Rank

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

EEMA
EEMA Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8484
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 8181
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
Martin Ratio Rank

AIA
AIA Risk / Return Rank: 9393
Overall Rank
AIA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9595
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AIA Sortino Ratio Rank: 9292
Sortino Ratio Rank
AIA Omega Ratio Rank: 9292
Omega Ratio Rank
AIA Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
AIA Martin Ratio Rank: 9494
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.

EEMA vs. AIA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) and iShares Asia 50 ETF (AIA). 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.


EEMAAIADifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.80

3.94

-1.14

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

3.64

4.57

-0.93

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.50

1.64

-0.14

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

3.99

7.16

-3.17

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

15.03

26.55

-11.51

EEMA vs. AIA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMA Sharpe Ratio is 2.80, which is comparable to the AIA Sharpe Ratio of 3.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMA and AIA, 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


EEMAAIADifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.80

3.94

-1.14

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.35

0.49

-0.14

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.52

0.66

-0.14

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.37

0.32

+0.05

Drawdowns

EEMA vs. AIA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEMA drawdown since its inception was -44.18%, smaller than the maximum AIA drawdown of -60.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMA and AIA.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EEMAAIADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-44.18%

-60.89%

+16.71%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.30%

-14.15%

-0.15%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.23%

-21.64%

+1.41%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-40.67%

-50.17%

+9.50%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-44.18%

-54.64%

+10.46%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.17%

-1.19%

+0.02%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-13.97%

-16.68%

+2.71%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.79%

3.81%

-0.02%

Volatility

EEMA vs. AIA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) is 8.53%, while iShares Asia 50 ETF (AIA) has a volatility of 11.22%. This indicates that EEMA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AIA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EEMAAIADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.53%

11.22%

-2.69%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.40%

21.71%

-4.31%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.39%

25.70%

-5.31%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.41%

25.51%

-5.10%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.87%

23.55%

-2.68%

EEMA vs. AIA - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both EEMA and AIA have an expense ratio of 0.50%.


Dividends

EEMA vs. AIA - Dividend Comparison

EEMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.16%, less than AIA's 1.64% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
AIA
iShares Asia 50 ETF
1.64%2.50%2.78%2.07%2.59%1.54%1.11%2.24%2.49%1.45%2.29%2.88%
EEMA
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF
1.16%1.48%1.74%2.02%1.78%2.19%1.15%1.86%2.17%1.74%1.74%2.44%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.96, EEMA and AIA move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

AIA has higher volatility (11.22%) compared to EEMA (8.53%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMA dropped -44.18% vs AIA's -60.89%.

On 10-year performance, AIA leads with 15.48% vs 10.80% for EEMA. Both ETFs have the same 0.50% expense ratio. On volatility, EEMA has been the lower-risk option at 8.53%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, AIA has performed better with a 15.48% return vs 10.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EEMA and AIA have the same expense ratio: 0.50% per year.

AIA has the higher dividend yield at 1.64%, compared with 1.16% for EEMA.

EEMA tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index, while AIA tracks S&P Asia 50.

AIA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.94 vs 2.80), 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 EEMA and AIA

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