EEMA vs. FNDF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EEMA (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF) and FNDF (Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EEMA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index, while FNDF is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the Russell Fundamental Developed ex-U.S. Large Company Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EEMA returned 10.80%/yr vs 11.93%/yr for FNDF. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EEMA charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for FNDF.

Performance

EEMA vs. FNDF - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EEMA achieves a 27.78% return, which is significantly higher than FNDF's 21.21% return. Over the past 10 years, EEMA has underperformed FNDF with an annualized return of 10.80%, while FNDF has yielded a comparatively higher 11.93% 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%

FNDF

• 1D: -0.67%
• 1M: 6.97%
• YTD: 21.21%
• 6M: 24.72%
• 1Y: 44.71%
• 3Y*: 24.10%
• 5Y*: 13.35%
• 10Y*: 11.93%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EEMA vs. FNDF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%
FNDF Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF	21.21%	40.99%	2.29%	20.22%	-7.78%	14.97%	3.61%	18.46%	-14.21%	23.98%

Correlation

The correlation between EEMA and FNDF is 0.73, 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	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.70
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.70
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 16, 2013	0.71

The correlation between EEMA and FNDF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

EEMA vs. FNDF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EEMA	FNDF
Technology	41.2%	11.1%
Financial Services	15.9%	16.7%
Consumer Cyclical	11.3%	10.7%
Industrials	8.8%	15.9%
Communication Services	6.0%	4.9%
Basic Materials	4.5%	11.3%
Healthcare	3.7%	5.5%
Energy	3.2%	12.3%
Consumer Defensive	2.8%	6.9%
Utilities	1.8%	3.8%
Real Estate	0.8%	0.9%

Return for Risk

EEMA vs. FNDF — Risk / Return Rank

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

EEMA

EEMA Risk / Return Rank: 81
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 82
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 77

FNDF

FNDF Risk / Return Rank: 84
FNDF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
FNDF Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
FNDF Omega Ratio Rank: 85
FNDF Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
FNDF Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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. FNDF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) and Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF (FNDF). 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.

	EEMA	FNDF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.80	2.99	-0.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.64	3.89	-0.24
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.53	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.99	4.24	-0.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.03	16.19	-1.16
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EEMA vs. FNDF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMA Sharpe Ratio is 2.80, which is comparable to the FNDF Sharpe Ratio of 2.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMA and FNDF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EEMA	FNDF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.80	2.99	-0.19
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.35	0.83	-0.48
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.52	0.68	-0.16
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.37	0.54	-0.16

Drawdowns

EEMA vs. FNDF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEMA drawdown since its inception was -44.18%, which is greater than FNDF's maximum drawdown of -40.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMA and FNDF.

Drawdown Indicators

	EEMA	FNDF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.18%	-40.14%	-4.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.30%	-10.60%	-3.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.23%	-13.89%	-6.34%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-40.67%	-25.56%	-15.11%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-44.18%	-40.14%	-4.04%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.17%	-0.67%	-0.50%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.97%	-7.64%	-6.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.79%	2.77%	+1.02%

Volatility

EEMA vs. FNDF - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) has a higher volatility of 8.53% compared to Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF (FNDF) at 5.26%. This indicates that EEMA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FNDF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EEMA	FNDF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.53%	5.26%	+3.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.40%	12.53%	+4.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.39%	15.06%	+5.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.41%	16.18%	+4.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.87%	17.67%	+3.20%

EEMA vs. FNDF - Expense Ratio Comparison

EEMA has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than FNDF's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

EEMA vs. FNDF - Dividend Comparison

EEMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.16%, less than FNDF's 2.84% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
FNDF Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF	2.84%	3.44%	4.01%	3.41%	3.10%	3.54%	2.17%	3.20%	3.47%	2.32%	2.42%	2.08%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EEMA and FNDF in my portfolio?

EEMA and FNDF have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EEMA or FNDF?

EEMA has higher volatility (8.53%) compared to FNDF (5.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMA dropped -44.18% vs FNDF's -40.14%.

Which ETF is better, EEMA or FNDF?

On 10-year performance, FNDF leads with 11.93% vs 10.80% for EEMA. On fees, FNDF is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, FNDF has been the lower-risk option at 5.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EEMA or FNDF?

Over the 10-year period, FNDF has performed better with a 11.93% return vs 10.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EEMA or FNDF?

FNDF is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EEMA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EEMA or FNDF?

FNDF has the higher dividend yield at 2.84%, compared with 1.16% for EEMA.

What is the main difference between EEMA and FNDF?

EEMA is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while FNDF is Foreign Large Cap Equities. EEMA tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index, while FNDF tracks Russell Fundamental Developed ex-U.S. Large Company Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EEMA and 0.25% for FNDF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNDF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.99 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.