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

Performance

EEMA vs. EWS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) and iShares MSCI Singapore ETF (EWS). 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 29.62% return, which is significantly higher than EWS's 10.24% return. Over the past 10 years, EEMA has outperformed EWS with an annualized return of 11.30%, while EWS has yielded a comparatively lower 8.40% annualized return.


EEMA

1D
0.76%
1M
7.84%
YTD
29.62%
6M
31.87%
1Y
55.09%
3Y*
25.38%
5Y*
7.89%
10Y*
11.30%

EWS

1D
0.00%
1M
2.91%
YTD
10.24%
6M
10.76%
1Y
23.81%
3Y*
22.84%
5Y*
10.58%
10Y*
8.40%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EEMA vs. EWS - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EEMA
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF
29.62%33.27%10.23%6.57%-21.49%-4.22%25.17%18.60%-15.76%43.41%
EWS
iShares MSCI Singapore ETF
10.24%31.35%22.10%6.15%-9.80%5.47%-8.47%14.54%-11.34%34.78%

Correlation

The correlation between EEMA and EWS 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

0.59

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

0.61

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

0.65

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

0.69

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 9, 2012

0.69

The correlation between EEMA and EWS shifts across timeframes, from 0.58 (1 year) to 0.69 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EEMA vs. EWS - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EEMA
EWS

Technology

43.4%
4.5%

Financial Services

15.3%
51.6%

Consumer Cyclical

10.4%
4.6%

Industrials

8.4%
18.1%

Communication Services

6.6%
3.9%

Basic Materials

4.4%

-

Healthcare

3.5%

-

Energy

2.8%

-

Consumer Defensive

2.6%
4.1%

Utilities

1.7%
4.3%

Real Estate

0.9%
8.9%

Technology

EEMA
43.4%
EWS
4.5%

Financial Services

EEMA
15.3%
EWS
51.6%

Consumer Cyclical

EEMA
10.4%
EWS
4.6%

Industrials

EEMA
8.4%
EWS
18.1%

Communication Services

EEMA
6.6%
EWS
3.9%

Basic Materials

EEMA
4.4%
EWS

-

Healthcare

EEMA
3.5%
EWS

-

Energy

EEMA
2.8%
EWS

-

Consumer Defensive

EEMA
2.6%
EWS
4.1%

Utilities

EEMA
1.7%
EWS
4.3%

Real Estate

EEMA
0.9%
EWS
8.9%

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. EWS — Risk / Return Rank

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

EEMA
EEMA Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
Martin Ratio Rank

EWS
EWS Risk / Return Rank: 4949
Overall Rank
EWS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4747
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EWS Sortino Ratio Rank: 4646
Sortino Ratio Rank
EWS Omega Ratio Rank: 4545
Omega Ratio Rank
EWS Calmar Ratio Rank: 6464
Calmar Ratio Rank
EWS Martin Ratio Rank: 4646
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. EWS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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


EEMAEWSDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.95

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.99

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.46

1.28

+0.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.87

3.06

+0.81

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.07

7.38

+6.69

EEMA vs. EWS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMA Sharpe Ratio is 2.52, which is higher than the EWS Sharpe Ratio of 1.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMA and EWS, 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

EEMA vs. EWS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEMA drawdown since its inception was -44.18%, smaller than the maximum EWS drawdown of -75.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMA and EWS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EEMAEWSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-44.18%

-75.13%

+30.95%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.30%

-7.82%

-6.48%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.23%

-16.34%

-3.89%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-40.46%

-29.06%

-11.40%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-44.18%

-40.84%

-3.34%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-13.94%

-21.97%

+8.03%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.93%

3.23%

+0.70%

Volatility

EEMA vs. EWS - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) has a higher volatility of 10.29% compared to iShares MSCI Singapore ETF (EWS) at 5.10%. This indicates that EEMA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EWS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EEMAEWSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.29%

5.10%

+5.19%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

19.37%

12.16%

+7.21%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

22.05%

15.30%

+6.75%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.75%

17.32%

+3.43%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.03%

18.05%

+2.98%

EEMA vs. EWS - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

EEMA vs. EWS - Dividend Comparison

EEMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.27%, less than EWS's 3.98% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EEMA
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF
1.27%1.48%1.74%2.02%1.78%2.19%1.15%1.86%2.17%1.74%1.74%2.44%
EWS
iShares MSCI Singapore ETF
3.98%4.10%4.28%6.50%2.56%6.00%2.68%4.70%4.21%3.46%3.96%4.20%

Frequently Asked Questions


EEMA and EWS 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.

EEMA has higher volatility (10.29%) compared to EWS (5.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMA dropped -44.18% vs EWS's -75.13%.

On 10-year performance, EEMA leads with 11.30% vs 8.40% for EWS. Both ETFs have the same 0.50% expense ratio. On volatility, EWS has been the lower-risk option at 5.10%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, EEMA has performed better with a 11.30% return vs 8.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

EWS has the higher dividend yield at 3.98%, compared with 1.27% for EEMA.

EEMA tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index, while EWS tracks MSCI Singapore Index.

EEMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.52 vs 1.57), 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 EWS

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