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

Performance

EEMA vs. IEMG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG). 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 18.98% return, which is significantly higher than IEMG's 17.70% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with EEMA having a 9.49% annualized return and IEMG not far behind at 9.04%.


EEMA

1D
-3.06%
1M
-3.81%
6M
12.59%
YTD
18.98%
1Y
36.78%
3Y*
19.74%
5Y*
6.29%
10Y*
9.49%

IEMG

1D
-3.48%
1M
-4.18%
6M
11.50%
YTD
17.70%
1Y
34.02%
3Y*
18.90%
5Y*
6.68%
10Y*
9.04%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EEMA vs. IEMG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EEMA
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF
18.98%33.27%10.23%6.57%-21.49%-4.22%25.17%18.60%-15.76%43.41%
IEMG
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
17.70%32.56%6.50%11.52%-19.98%-0.64%17.87%17.81%-14.92%37.38%

Correlation

The correlation between EEMA and IEMG is 0.98 - 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

0.98

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

0.96

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

0.96

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

0.95

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2012

0.93

The correlation between EEMA and IEMG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

EEMA vs. IEMG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EEMA
IEMG

Technology

43.4%
42.1%

Financial Services

15.3%
16.7%

Consumer Cyclical

10.4%
8.5%

Industrials

8.4%
8.0%

Communication Services

6.6%
5.6%

Basic Materials

4.4%
6.3%

Healthcare

3.5%
3.2%

Energy

2.8%
3.3%

Consumer Defensive

2.6%
2.8%

Utilities

1.7%
1.9%

Real Estate

0.9%
1.6%

Technology

EEMA
43.4%
IEMG
42.1%

Financial Services

EEMA
15.3%
IEMG
16.7%

Consumer Cyclical

EEMA
10.4%
IEMG
8.5%

Industrials

EEMA
8.4%
IEMG
8.0%

Communication Services

EEMA
6.6%
IEMG
5.6%

Basic Materials

EEMA
4.4%
IEMG
6.3%

Healthcare

EEMA
3.5%
IEMG
3.2%

Energy

EEMA
2.8%
IEMG
3.3%

Consumer Defensive

EEMA
2.6%
IEMG
2.8%

Utilities

EEMA
1.7%
IEMG
1.9%

Real Estate

EEMA
0.9%
IEMG
1.6%

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. IEMG — Risk / Return Rank

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

EEMA
EEMA Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 5656
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank

IEMG
IEMG Risk / Return Rank: 5959
Overall Rank
IEMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5555
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IEMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5050
Sortino Ratio Rank
IEMG Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
Omega Ratio Rank
IEMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
IEMG Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
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. IEMG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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


EEMAIEMGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.10

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.14

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.30

1.29

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.58

2.59

0.00

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.89

8.86

+0.03

EEMA vs. IEMG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMA Sharpe Ratio is 1.60, which is comparable to the IEMG Sharpe Ratio of 1.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMA and IEMG, 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. IEMG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEMA drawdown since its inception was -44.18%, which is greater than IEMG's maximum drawdown of -38.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMA and IEMG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EEMAIEMGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-44.18%

-38.71%

-5.47%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.30%

-13.21%

-1.09%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.23%

-17.21%

-3.02%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.81%

-34.19%

-4.62%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-44.18%

-38.71%

-5.47%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.21%

-8.73%

+0.52%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-13.90%

-12.91%

-0.99%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.15%

3.85%

+0.30%

Volatility

EEMA vs. IEMG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) is 10.02%, while iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG) has a volatility of 10.84%. This indicates that EEMA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IEMG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EEMAIEMGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.02%

10.84%

-0.82%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

20.70%

20.94%

-0.24%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

23.20%

22.88%

+0.32%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.98%

19.15%

+1.83%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.05%

20.22%

+0.83%

EEMA vs. IEMG - Expense Ratio Comparison

EEMA has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than IEMG's 0.09% expense ratio.


Dividends

EEMA vs. IEMG - Dividend Comparison

EEMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.38%, less than IEMG's 2.29% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EEMA
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF
1.38%1.48%1.74%2.02%1.78%2.19%1.15%1.86%2.17%1.74%1.74%2.44%
IEMG
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
2.29%2.75%3.20%2.89%2.71%3.06%1.87%3.15%2.76%2.35%2.28%2.53%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.98, EEMA and IEMG 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.

IEMG has higher volatility (10.84%) compared to EEMA (10.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMA dropped -44.18% vs IEMG's -38.71%.

On 10-year performance, EEMA leads with 9.49% vs 9.04% for IEMG. On fees, IEMG is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, EEMA has been the lower-risk option at 10.02%. 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 9.49% return vs 9.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IEMG is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EEMA.

IEMG has the higher dividend yield at 2.29%, compared with 1.38% for EEMA.

EEMA is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while IEMG is Emerging Markets Diversified. EEMA tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index, while IEMG tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index (USD) (Net). Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EEMA and 0.09% for IEMG.

EEMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.60 vs 1.50), 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 IEMG

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