EEMA vs. FNDF

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) and Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF (FNDF).

EEMA and FNDF are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. EEMA is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. It was launched on Feb 8, 2012. FNDF is a passively managed fund by Charles Schwab that tracks the performance of the Russell Fundamental Developed ex-U.S. Large Company Index. It was launched on Aug 15, 2013. Both EEMA and FNDF are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

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.

EEMA vs. FNDF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	1.82%	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	8.23%	40.99%	2.29%	20.22%	-7.78%	14.97%	3.61%	18.46%	-14.21%	23.98%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EEMA achieves a 1.82% return, which is significantly lower than FNDF's 8.23% return. Over the past 10 years, EEMA has underperformed FNDF with an annualized return of 8.32%, while FNDF has yielded a comparatively higher 11.09% annualized return.

EEMA

• 1D: 3.56%
• 1M: -10.12%
• YTD: 1.82%
• 6M: 5.73%
• 1Y: 31.27%
• 3Y*: 14.95%
• 5Y*: 2.85%
• 10Y*: 8.32%

FNDF

• 1D: 2.95%
• 1M: -7.26%
• YTD: 8.23%
• 6M: 17.33%
• 1Y: 40.22%
• 3Y*: 20.38%
• 5Y*: 12.44%
• 10Y*: 11.09%

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

EEMA vs. FNDF - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

EEMA

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF

FNDF

Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF

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: 80
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 79
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 80

FNDF

FNDF Risk / Return Rank: 95
FNDF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
FNDF Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
FNDF Omega Ratio Rank: 95
FNDF Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
FNDF Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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	1.47	2.31	-0.84
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.07	3.02	-0.95
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.46	-0.17
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.19	3.52	-1.33
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	8.36	13.78	-5.42
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 1.47, which is lower than the FNDF Sharpe Ratio of 2.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMA and FNDF, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EEMA	FNDF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.47	2.31	-0.84
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.14	0.78	-0.64
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.40	0.63	-0.23
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.29	0.49	-0.19

Correlation

The correlation between EEMA and FNDF is 0.71, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

EEMA vs. FNDF - Dividend Comparison

EEMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.45%, less than FNDF's 3.18% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	1.45%	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	3.18%	3.44%	4.01%	3.41%	3.10%	3.54%	2.17%	3.20%	3.47%	2.32%	2.42%	2.08%

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%	-11.08%	-3.22%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-40.87%	-25.56%	-15.31%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-44.18%	-40.14%	-4.04%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.25%	-7.26%	-3.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.12%	-7.72%	-6.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.75%	2.83%	+0.92%

Volatility

EEMA vs. FNDF - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) has a higher volatility of 10.20% compared to Schwab Fundamental International Large Company Index ETF (FNDF) at 8.06%. 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	10.20%	8.06%	+2.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.24%	11.42%	+3.82%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.30%	17.50%	+3.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.94%	16.05%	+3.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.65%	17.64%	+3.01%