EEMV vs. ACWV

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

EEMV (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF) and ACWV (iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EEMV is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Minimum Volatility Index, while ACWV is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI AC World Minimum Volatility (USD). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EEMV returned 6.37%/yr vs 7.26%/yr for ACWV. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EEMV charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ACWV.

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.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EEMV achieves a 13.43% return, which is significantly higher than ACWV's 1.59% return. Over the past 10 years, EEMV has underperformed ACWV with an annualized return of 6.37%, while ACWV has yielded a comparatively higher 7.26% annualized return.

EEMV

• 1D: 1.51%
• 1M: -1.16%
• YTD: 13.43%
• 6M: 14.40%
• 1Y: 20.63%
• 3Y*: 12.52%
• 5Y*: 4.95%
• 10Y*: 6.37%

ACWV

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: -0.30%
• YTD: 1.59%
• 6M: 2.50%
• 1Y: 3.85%
• 3Y*: 9.71%
• 5Y*: 5.30%
• 10Y*: 7.26%

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

EEMV vs. ACWV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EEMV iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF	13.43%	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	1.59%	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 0.54, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.54
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.65
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 21, 2011	0.70

The correlation between EEMV and ACWV shifts across timeframes, from 0.54 (1 year) to 0.70 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EEMV vs. ACWV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EEMV	ACWV
Technology	28.9%	22.6%
Financial Services	17.7%	13.1%
Communication Services	11.2%	12.2%
Consumer Defensive	6.8%	10.3%
Industrials	6.7%	7.9%
Healthcare	6.2%	13.2%
Consumer Cyclical	5.0%	5.1%
Utilities	4.6%	7.8%
Energy	3.4%	3.4%
Basic Materials	3.1%	1.8%
Real Estate	0.5%	0.8%

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: 50
EEMV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
EEMV Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
EEMV Omega Ratio Rank: 53
EEMV Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
EEMV Martin Ratio Rank: 52

ACWV

ACWV Risk / Return Rank: 17
ACWV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
ACWV Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
ACWV Omega Ratio Rank: 16
ACWV Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
ACWV Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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.

	EEMV	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.48	0.50	+0.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.04	0.74	+1.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.09	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.25	0.61	+1.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.21	1.87	+6.34
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EEMV vs. ACWV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMV Sharpe Ratio is 1.48, which is higher than the ACWV Sharpe Ratio of 0.50. 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EEMV	ACWV	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.48	0.50	+0.98
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41	0.52	-0.11
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.46	0.59	-0.13
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.37	0.70	-0.33

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	EEMV	ACWV	Difference
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	-4.70%	-3.64%	-1.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.97%	-3.11%	-4.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.52%	2.06%	+0.46%

Volatility

EEMV vs. ACWV - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV) has a higher volatility of 7.37% compared to iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF (ACWV) at 2.09%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	EEMV	ACWV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.37%	2.09%	+5.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.79%	5.66%	+7.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.01%	7.79%	+6.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.06%	10.24%	+1.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.94%	12.31%	+1.63%

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 2.33%, more than ACWV's 2.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWV iShares MSCI Global Min Vol Factor ETF	2.05%	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	2.33%	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

Can I hold both EEMV and ACWV in my portfolio?

EEMV and ACWV have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EEMV or ACWV?

EEMV has higher volatility (7.37%) compared to ACWV (2.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMV dropped -31.56% vs ACWV's -28.82%.

Which ETF is better, EEMV or ACWV?

On 10-year performance, ACWV leads with 7.26% vs 6.37% for EEMV. On fees, ACWV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, ACWV has been the lower-risk option at 2.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EEMV or ACWV?

Over the 10-year period, ACWV has performed better with a 7.26% return vs 6.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EEMV or ACWV?

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

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EEMV or ACWV?

EEMV has the higher dividend yield at 2.33%, compared with 2.05% for ACWV.

What is the main difference between EEMV and ACWV?

EEMV is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while ACWV is Large Cap Blend Equities. EEMV tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Minimum Volatility Index, while ACWV tracks MSCI AC World Minimum Volatility (USD). Their fees differ too: 0.25% for EEMV and 0.20% for ACWV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EEMV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.48 vs 0.50), 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.