PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
EEMA vs. VPL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

EEMA vs. VPL

Last updated Aug 5, 2026
Documentation

EEMA (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF) and VPL (Vanguard FTSE Pacific ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - EEMA tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index while VPL tracks the FTSE Developed Asia Pacific Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EEMA returned 9.46%/yr vs 9.80%/yr for VPL. Their 0.75 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. EEMA charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for VPL.

Performance

EEMA vs. VPL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) and Vanguard FTSE Pacific ETF (VPL). 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 22.06% return, which is significantly lower than VPL's 24.90% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with EEMA having a 9.46% annualized return and VPL not far ahead at 9.80%.

EEMA

1D
2.15%
1M
0.93%
6M
13.61%
YTD
22.06%
1Y
38.70%
3Y*
21.29%
5Y*
7.47%
10Y*
9.46%
ALL TIME*
7.10%

VPL

1D
2.82%
1M
0.85%
6M
13.01%
YTD
24.90%
1Y
40.16%
3Y*
20.99%
5Y*
9.79%
10Y*
9.80%
ALL TIME*
6.65%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

EEMA

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF
$19.43M$13.06M$19.95M

VPL

Vanguard FTSE Pacific ETF
$40.53M$44.18M$59.20M

EEMA vs. VPL - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EEMA
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF		22.06%33.27%10.23%6.57%-21.49%-4.22%25.17%18.60%-15.76%43.41%
VPL
Vanguard FTSE Pacific ETF		24.90%32.66%1.68%15.58%-15.20%1.10%16.65%18.16%-14.40%28.85%

Correlation

The correlation between EEMA and VPL is 0.84, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.84

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.75

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.76

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.77

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 9, 2012

0.75

The correlation between EEMA and VPL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

EEMA vs. VPL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
EEMA
VPL

Technology

40.7%
31.6%

Financial Services

17.0%
17.8%

Consumer Cyclical

9.9%
8.8%

Industrials

8.4%
17.4%

Communication Services

6.6%
4.4%

Basic Materials

4.8%
6.5%

Healthcare

3.9%
4.3%

Consumer Defensive

2.8%
3.2%

Energy

2.7%
1.1%

Utilities

1.7%
1.3%

Real Estate

1.0%
3.6%

Technology

EEMA
40.7%
VPL
31.6%

Financial Services

EEMA
17.0%
VPL
17.8%

Consumer Cyclical

EEMA
9.9%
VPL
8.8%

Industrials

EEMA
8.4%
VPL
17.4%

Communication Services

EEMA
6.6%
VPL
4.4%

Basic Materials

EEMA
4.8%
VPL
6.5%

Healthcare

EEMA
3.9%
VPL
4.3%

Consumer Defensive

EEMA
2.8%
VPL
3.2%

Energy

EEMA
2.7%
VPL
1.1%

Utilities

EEMA
1.7%
VPL
1.3%

Real Estate

EEMA
1.0%
VPL
3.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF

Vanguard FTSE Pacific ETF

Often compared with EEMA:
EEMA vs. AIAEEMA vs. GMFEEMA vs. VFEM.LEEMA vs. MATFXEEMA vs. VAPX.ASEEMA vs. GXCEEMA vs. MCHI
Often compared with VPL:
VPL vs. AAXJVPL vs. VEAVPL vs. VWOVPL vs. VXUSVPL vs. IPACVPL vs. VGKVPL vs. VEU

Return for Risk

EEMA vs. VPL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
EEMA
EEMA Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6161
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 5656
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 7070
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 6161
Martin Ratio Rank
VPL
VPL Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
VPL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6565
Sharpe Ratio Rank
VPL Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
VPL Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
VPL Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
VPL Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

EEMA vs. VPL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) and Vanguard FTSE Pacific ETF (VPL). 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.

EEMAVPLDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.63
1.69

-0.06

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.19
2.27

-0.09

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.30

1.32

-0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.72

3.03

-0.31

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.33

9.11

-0.78

EEMA vs. VPL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMA Sharpe Ratio is 1.63, which is comparable to the VPL Sharpe Ratio of 1.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMA and VPL, 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. VPL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEMA drawdown since its inception was -44.18%, smaller than the maximum VPL drawdown of -55.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMA and VPL.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EEMAVPLDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-44.18%

-55.49%

+11.31%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.30%

-13.33%

-0.97%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.23%

-16.35%

-3.88%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.31%

-31.09%

-7.22%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-44.18%

-33.90%

-10.28%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.83%

-6.48%

+0.65%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-13.88%

-11.59%

-2.29%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.66%

4.42%

+0.24%

Volatility

EEMA vs. VPL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) is 7.78%, while Vanguard FTSE Pacific ETF (VPL) has a volatility of 9.18%. This indicates that EEMA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than VPL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

EEMAVPLDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.78%

9.18%

-1.40%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.29%

21.88%

-0.59%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

23.86%

23.91%

-0.05%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.05%

18.39%

+2.66%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.13%

17.75%

+3.38%

EEMA vs. VPL - Expense Ratio Comparison

EEMA has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than VPL's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

EEMA vs. VPL - Dividend Comparison

EEMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.35%, less than VPL's 2.68% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EEMA
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF		1.35%1.48%1.74%2.02%1.78%2.19%1.15%1.86%2.17%1.74%1.74%2.44%
VPL
Vanguard FTSE Pacific ETF		2.68%4.01%3.15%3.12%2.75%3.19%1.81%2.84%3.06%2.57%2.65%2.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

EEMA and VPL have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

VPL has higher volatility (9.18%) compared to EEMA (7.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMA dropped -44.18% vs VPL's -55.49%.

On 10-year performance, VPL leads with 9.80% vs 9.46% for EEMA. On fees, VPL is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, EEMA has been the lower-risk option at 7.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, VPL has performed better with a 9.80% return vs 9.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

VPL is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EEMA.

VPL has the higher dividend yield at 2.68%, compared with 1.35% for EEMA.

EEMA tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index, while VPL tracks FTSE Developed Asia Pacific Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EEMA and 0.08% for VPL.

VPL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.69 vs 1.63), 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 VPL

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