PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EEMV vs. ACWV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EEMV vs. ACWV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EEMV achieves a 11.64% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 3.37% return. Over the past 10 years, EEMV has underperformed ACWV with an annualized return of 5.61%, while ACWV has yielded a comparatively higher 6.94% annualized return.


EEMV

1D
-0.08%
1M
-7.54%
6M
8.10%
YTD
11.64%
1Y
15.38%
3Y*
11.47%
5Y*
5.12%
10Y*
5.61%
ALL TIME*
5.18%

ACWV

1D
-0.03%
1M
2.00%
6M
2.51%
YTD
3.37%
1Y
5.99%
3Y*
9.33%
5Y*
5.45%
10Y*
6.94%
ALL TIME*
8.60%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EEMV vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EEMV
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF
11.64%13.45%7.98%7.75%-13.94%5.05%6.90%7.83%-5.81%27.28%
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF
3.37%11.04%11.38%8.23%-10.36%13.97%3.04%21.04%-1.42%18.57%

Correlation

The correlation between EEMV and ACWV is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.48

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

0.58

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

0.63

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

0.66

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 20, 2011

0.69

Over the past year, the correlation between EEMV and ACWV has dropped to 0.48 - well below their long-term average of 0.69, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

EEMV vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EEMV
ACWV

Technology

37.4%
25.3%

Financial Services

18.3%
13.5%

Communication Services

10.0%
11.3%

Consumer Cyclical

6.7%
5.3%

Industrials

5.8%
8.1%

Healthcare

5.5%
13.8%

Consumer Defensive

5.4%
9.7%

Utilities

4.2%
7.5%

Energy

3.5%
3.5%

Basic Materials

2.6%
1.5%

Real Estate

0.6%
0.6%

Technology

EEMV
37.4%
ACWV
25.3%

Financial Services

EEMV
18.3%
ACWV
13.5%

Communication Services

EEMV
10.0%
ACWV
11.3%

Consumer Cyclical

EEMV
6.7%
ACWV
5.3%

Industrials

EEMV
5.8%
ACWV
8.1%

Healthcare

EEMV
5.5%
ACWV
13.8%

Consumer Defensive

EEMV
5.4%
ACWV
9.7%

Utilities

EEMV
4.2%
ACWV
7.5%

Energy

EEMV
3.5%
ACWV
3.5%

Basic Materials

EEMV
2.6%
ACWV
1.5%

Real Estate

EEMV
0.6%
ACWV
0.6%

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

EEMV vs. ACWV — Risk / Return Rank

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

EEMV
EEMV Risk / Return Rank: 3939
Overall Rank
EEMV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3535
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMV Sortino Ratio Rank: 3333
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMV Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMV Calmar Ratio Rank: 4343
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMV Martin Ratio Rank: 4444
Martin Ratio Rank

ACWV
ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 2626
Overall Rank
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2727
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 2626
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 2525
Omega Ratio Rank
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 2626
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
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.

EEMV vs. ACWV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV) and iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV). 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.


EEMVACWVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.22

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.27

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.20

1.14

+0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.67

0.94

+0.73

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.34

2.68

+2.66

EEMV vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMV Sharpe Ratio is 0.97, which is comparable to the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMV and ACWV, 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

EEMV vs. ACWV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEMV drawdown since its inception was -31.56%, which is greater than ACWV's maximum drawdown of -28.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMV and ACWV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EEMVACWVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-31.56%

-28.82%

-2.74%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.22%

-6.37%

-2.85%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.47%

-7.56%

-4.91%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.90%

-18.14%

-3.76%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-31.56%

-28.82%

-2.74%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-7.88%

-1.96%

-5.92%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.94%

-3.11%

-4.83%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.89%

2.24%

+0.65%

Volatility

EEMV vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV) has a higher volatility of 6.62% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 2.99%. This indicates that EEMV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EEMVACWVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.62%

2.99%

+3.63%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.93%

6.26%

+8.67%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.97%

8.03%

+7.94%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.51%

10.28%

+2.23%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.00%

12.29%

+1.71%

EEMV vs. ACWV - Expense Ratio Comparison

EEMV has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWV's 0.20% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

EEMV vs. ACWV - Dividend Comparison

EEMV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.29%, more than ACWV's 1.94% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ACWV
iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF
1.94%2.09%2.33%2.41%2.18%1.92%1.77%2.54%2.32%2.04%2.56%2.28%
EEMV
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF
2.29%2.65%3.50%2.75%1.93%2.14%2.45%2.63%2.46%2.34%2.79%2.55%

Frequently Asked Questions


EEMV and ACWV have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EEMV has higher volatility (6.62%) compared to ACWV (2.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMV dropped -31.56% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

On 10-year performance, ACWV leads with 6.94% vs 5.61% for EEMV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 2.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, ACWV has performed better with a 6.94% return vs 5.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ACWV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for EEMV.

EEMV has the higher dividend yield at 2.29%, compared with 1.94% for ACWV.

EEMV is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while ACWV is Global Equities. EEMV tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Minimum Volatility Index, while ACWV tracks MSCI ACWI Minimum Volatility Index. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for EEMV and 0.20% for ACWV.

EEMV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.97 vs 0.75), 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 EEMV and ACWV

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