EEMA vs. RSBY

Last updated Jul 12, 2026

EEMA (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF) and RSBY (Return Stacked Bonds & Futures Yield ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EEMA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index, while RSBY is a Multistrategy fund actively managed by Return Stacked. EEMA is passively managed, while RSBY is actively managed. Over the past year, EEMA returned 41.10% vs 17.35% for RSBY. At a correlation of -0.26, they often move in opposite directions. EEMA charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.98%/yr for RSBY.

Performance

EEMA vs. RSBY - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) and Return Stacked Bonds & Futures Yield ETF (RSBY). 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 RSBY's 18.52% 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%

RSBY

• 1D: -0.60%
• 1M: -0.71%
• 6M: 17.92%
• YTD: 18.52%
• 1Y: 17.35%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EEMA vs. RSBY - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	22.74%	33.27%	-1.10%
RSBY Return Stacked Bonds & Futures Yield ETF	18.52%	-12.98%	-7.79%

Correlation

The correlation between EEMA and RSBY is -0.21, 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	-0.21
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 21, 2024	-0.26

Return for Risk

EEMA vs. RSBY — 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

RSBY

RSBY Risk / Return Rank: 51
RSBY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
RSBY Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
RSBY Omega Ratio Rank: 51
RSBY Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
RSBY Martin Ratio Rank: 40

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. RSBY - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) and Return Stacked Bonds & Futures Yield ETF (RSBY). 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	RSBY	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	1.50	+0.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.36	2.18	+0.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.26	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.86	2.15	+0.71
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.94	5.04	+4.90

EEMA vs. RSBY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMA Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is comparable to the RSBY Sharpe Ratio of 1.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMA and RSBY, 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. RSBY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEMA drawdown since its inception was -44.18%, which is greater than RSBY's maximum drawdown of -23.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMA and RSBY.

Drawdown Indicators

	EEMA	RSBY	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.18%	-23.32%	-20.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.30%	-7.95%	-6.35%
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%	-6.45%	+1.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.91%	-13.35%	-0.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.12%	3.39%	+0.73%

Volatility

EEMA vs. RSBY - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) has a higher volatility of 9.60% compared to Return Stacked Bonds & Futures Yield ETF (RSBY) at 3.15%. This indicates that EEMA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RSBY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EEMA	RSBY	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.60%	3.15%	+6.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.45%	8.37%	+12.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.94%	11.41%	+11.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.93%	13.37%	+7.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.03%	13.37%	+7.66%

EEMA vs. RSBY - Expense Ratio Comparison

EEMA has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than RSBY's 0.98% expense ratio.

Dividends

EEMA vs. RSBY - Dividend Comparison

EEMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.34%, less than RSBY's 1.75% yield.

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%
RSBY Return Stacked Bonds & Futures Yield ETF	1.75%	2.07%	2.29%	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 RSBY in my portfolio?

EEMA and RSBY have a correlation of -0.21, 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 RSBY?

EEMA has higher volatility (9.60%) compared to RSBY (3.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMA dropped -44.18% vs RSBY's -23.32%.

Which ETF is better, EEMA or RSBY?

On 1-year performance, EEMA leads with 41.10% vs 17.35% for RSBY. On fees, EEMA is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, RSBY has been the lower-risk option at 3.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EEMA or RSBY?

Over the 1-year period, EEMA has performed better with a 41.10% return vs 17.35%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EEMA or RSBY?

EEMA is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.98% for RSBY.

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

RSBY has the higher dividend yield at 1.75%, compared with 1.34% for EEMA.

What is the main difference between EEMA and RSBY?

EEMA is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while RSBY is Multistrategy. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Return Stacked. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EEMA and 0.98% for RSBY.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EEMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.79 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.