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

Performance

EEMA vs. EWY - 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 South Korea ETF (EWY). 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 26.70% return, which is significantly lower than EWY's 109.80% return. Over the past 10 years, EEMA has underperformed EWY with an annualized return of 10.66%, while EWY has yielded a comparatively higher 16.82% annualized return.


EEMA

1D
-0.85%
1M
6.12%
YTD
26.70%
6M
30.29%
1Y
53.35%
3Y*
23.94%
5Y*
6.86%
10Y*
10.66%

EWY

1D
-4.22%
1M
17.58%
YTD
109.80%
6M
127.01%
1Y
225.96%
3Y*
49.84%
5Y*
19.28%
10Y*
16.82%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EEMA vs. EWY - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EEMA
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF
26.70%33.27%10.23%6.57%-21.49%-4.22%25.17%18.60%-15.76%43.41%
EWY
iShares MSCI South Korea ETF
109.80%95.33%-20.48%19.05%-26.59%-7.58%39.43%7.97%-20.37%44.97%

Correlation

The correlation between EEMA and EWY is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


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

0.82

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

0.77

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

0.77

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

0.81

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

0.80

The correlation between EEMA and EWY has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

EEMA vs. EWY - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EEMA
EWY

Technology

41.2%
52.4%

Financial Services

15.9%
9.6%

Consumer Cyclical

11.3%
5.7%

Industrials

8.8%
20.4%

Communication Services

6.0%
2.9%

Basic Materials

4.5%
2.0%

Healthcare

3.7%
3.5%

Energy

3.2%
1.4%

Consumer Defensive

2.8%
1.7%

Utilities

1.8%
0.4%

Real Estate

0.8%

-

Technology

EEMA
41.2%
EWY
52.4%

Financial Services

EEMA
15.9%
EWY
9.6%

Consumer Cyclical

EEMA
11.3%
EWY
5.7%

Industrials

EEMA
8.8%
EWY
20.4%

Communication Services

EEMA
6.0%
EWY
2.9%

Basic Materials

EEMA
4.5%
EWY
2.0%

Healthcare

EEMA
3.7%
EWY
3.5%

Energy

EEMA
3.2%
EWY
1.4%

Consumer Defensive

EEMA
2.8%
EWY
1.7%

Utilities

EEMA
1.8%
EWY
0.4%

Real Estate

EEMA
0.8%
EWY

-

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. EWY — Risk / Return Rank

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

EEMA
EEMA Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank

EWY
EWY Risk / Return Rank: 9696
Overall Rank
EWY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9898
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EWY Sortino Ratio Rank: 9494
Sortino Ratio Rank
EWY Omega Ratio Rank: 9494
Omega Ratio Rank
EWY Calmar Ratio Rank: 9696
Calmar Ratio Rank
EWY Martin Ratio Rank: 9696
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. EWY - 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 South Korea ETF (EWY). 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.


EEMAEWYDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.75

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.48

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.48

1.69

-0.21

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.75

9.86

-6.11

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.12

36.63

-22.52

EEMA vs. EWY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMA Sharpe Ratio is 2.63, which is lower than the EWY Sharpe Ratio of 5.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMA and EWY, 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


EEMAEWYDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.63

5.38

-2.75

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.34

0.67

-0.33

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.51

0.62

-0.10

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.37

0.33

+0.04

Drawdowns

EEMA vs. EWY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEMA drawdown since its inception was -44.18%, smaller than the maximum EWY drawdown of -74.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMA and EWY.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EEMAEWYDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-44.18%

-74.14%

+29.96%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.30%

-23.08%

+8.78%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.23%

-27.36%

+7.13%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-40.67%

-48.55%

+7.88%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-44.18%

-49.73%

+5.55%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.01%

-5.87%

+3.86%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-13.97%

-20.12%

+6.15%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.79%

6.20%

-2.41%

Volatility

EEMA vs. EWY - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) is 8.48%, while iShares MSCI South Korea ETF (EWY) has a volatility of 20.44%. This indicates that EEMA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EWY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EEMAEWYDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.48%

20.44%

-11.96%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.43%

37.73%

-20.30%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.42%

42.37%

-21.95%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.41%

28.89%

-8.48%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.87%

27.40%

-6.53%

EEMA vs. EWY - Expense Ratio Comparison

EEMA has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than EWY's 0.59% expense ratio.


Dividends

EEMA vs. EWY - Dividend Comparison

EEMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.17%, more than EWY's 1.00% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EEMA
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF
1.17%1.48%1.74%2.02%1.78%2.19%1.15%1.86%2.17%1.74%1.74%2.44%
EWY
iShares MSCI South Korea ETF
1.00%2.10%2.55%2.52%1.23%2.16%0.73%2.10%1.34%2.90%1.21%2.42%

Frequently Asked Questions


EEMA and EWY have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EWY has higher volatility (20.44%) compared to EEMA (8.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMA dropped -44.18% vs EWY's -74.14%.

On 10-year performance, EWY leads with 16.82% vs 10.66% for EEMA. On fees, EEMA is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, EEMA has been the lower-risk option at 8.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, EWY has performed better with a 16.82% return vs 10.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EEMA is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for EWY.

EEMA has the higher dividend yield at 1.17%, compared with 1.00% for EWY.

EEMA tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index, while EWY tracks MSCI Korea Index. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EEMA and 0.59% for EWY.

EWY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.38 vs 2.63), 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 EWY

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