EEMA vs. MSTZ

Last updated Jul 12, 2026

EEMA (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF) and MSTZ (T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EEMA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index, while MSTZ is a Inverse Equities fund actively managed by REX. EEMA is passively managed, while MSTZ is actively managed. Over the past year, EEMA returned 41.10% vs 264.10% for MSTZ. At a correlation of -0.35, they often move in opposite directions. EEMA charges 0.50%/yr vs 1.05%/yr for MSTZ.

Performance

EEMA vs. MSTZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) and T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EEMA achieves a 22.74% return, which is significantly higher than MSTZ's -26.97% return.

EEMA

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: -0.78%
• 6M: 17.70%
• YTD: 22.74%
• 1Y: 41.10%
• 3Y*: 22.19%
• 5Y*: 7.06%
• 10Y*: 9.91%

MSTZ

• 1D: -1.53%
• 1M: 39.32%
• 6M: -19.19%
• YTD: -26.97%
• 1Y: 264.10%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EEMA vs. MSTZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	22.74%	33.27%	0.32%
MSTZ T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF	-26.97%	-38.95%	-94.43%

Correlation

The correlation between EEMA and MSTZ is -0.40, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 18, 2024	-0.35

Return for Risk

EEMA vs. MSTZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

EEMA

EEMA Risk / Return Rank: 69
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 71
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 69

MSTZ

MSTZ Risk / Return Rank: 60
MSTZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
MSTZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
MSTZ Omega Ratio Rank: 63
MSTZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
MSTZ Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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. MSTZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) and T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ). 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.

	EEMA	MSTZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	1.64	+0.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.36	2.34	+0.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.30	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.86	2.86	0.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.94	5.59	+4.35

EEMA vs. MSTZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMA Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is comparable to the MSTZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMA and MSTZ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

EEMA vs. MSTZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEMA drawdown since its inception was -44.18%, smaller than the maximum MSTZ drawdown of -99.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMA and MSTZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	EEMA	MSTZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.18%	-99.38%	+55.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.30%	-84.89%	+70.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.23%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.81%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-44.18%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.31%	-97.51%	+92.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.91%	-94.53%	+80.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.12%	43.41%	-39.29%

Volatility

EEMA vs. MSTZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) is 9.60%, while T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF (MSTZ) has a volatility of 56.46%. This indicates that EEMA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MSTZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EEMA	MSTZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.60%	56.46%	-46.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.45%	135.20%	-114.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.94%	148.41%	-125.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.93%	171.17%	-150.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.03%	171.17%	-150.14%

EEMA vs. MSTZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

EEMA has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than MSTZ's 1.05% expense ratio.

Dividends

EEMA vs. MSTZ - Dividend Comparison

EEMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.34%, while MSTZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	1.34%	1.48%	1.74%	2.02%	1.78%	2.19%	1.15%	1.86%	2.17%	1.74%	1.74%	2.44%
MSTZ T-REX 2X Inverse MSTR Daily Target ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EEMA and MSTZ in my portfolio?

EEMA and MSTZ have a correlation of -0.40, 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 MSTZ?

MSTZ has higher volatility (56.46%) compared to EEMA (9.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMA dropped -44.18% vs MSTZ's -99.38%.

Which ETF is better, EEMA or MSTZ?

On 1-year performance, MSTZ leads with 264.10% vs 41.10% for EEMA. On fees, EEMA is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, EEMA has been the lower-risk option at 9.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EEMA or MSTZ?

Over the 1-year period, MSTZ has performed better with a 264.10% return vs 41.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EEMA or MSTZ?

EEMA is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 1.05% for MSTZ.

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

EEMA has the higher dividend yield at 1.34%, compared with 0.00% for MSTZ.

What is the main difference between EEMA and MSTZ?

EEMA is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while MSTZ is Inverse Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and REX. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EEMA and 1.05% for MSTZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EEMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.79 vs 1.64), 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.