PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
EIMI.L vs. IEMA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

EIMI.L vs. IEMA.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

EIMI.L (iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF) and IEMA.L (iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds from iShares - EIMI.L tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index while IEMA.L tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EIMI.L returned 10.26%/yr vs 10.07%/yr for IEMA.L. With a 0.97 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. Both charge a 0.18% expense ratio.

Performance

EIMI.L vs. IEMA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L) and iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IEMA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EIMI.L achieves a 24.25% return, which is significantly lower than IEMA.L's 25.60% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with EIMI.L having a 10.26% annualized return and IEMA.L not far behind at 10.07%.

EIMI.L

1D
-1.30%
1M
4.51%
YTD
24.25%
6M
27.21%
1Y
49.41%
3Y*
23.30%
5Y*
7.61%
10Y*
10.26%

IEMA.L

1D
-1.44%
1M
5.31%
YTD
25.60%
6M
28.74%
1Y
52.38%
3Y*
24.09%
5Y*
7.42%
10Y*
10.07%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EIMI.L vs. IEMA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EIMI.L
iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF		24.25%32.16%7.36%11.03%-19.67%-0.65%18.80%16.37%-14.17%36.95%
IEMA.L
iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD (Acc)		25.60%34.41%7.61%9.43%-20.23%-2.83%19.01%15.75%-13.95%36.71%

Correlation

The correlation between EIMI.L and IEMA.L is 0.99 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

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

0.99

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

0.99

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

0.99

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

0.98

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 10, 2014

0.97

The correlation between EIMI.L and IEMA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.97 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

EIMI.L vs. IEMA.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
EIMI.L
IEMA.L

Technology

35.0%
36.8%

Financial Services

18.4%
19.4%

Consumer Cyclical

9.6%
9.6%

Industrials

8.9%
7.5%

Basic Materials

6.9%
6.5%

Communication Services

6.4%
6.9%

Energy

3.9%
4.1%

Healthcare

3.7%
2.9%

Consumer Defensive

3.3%
3.0%

Utilities

2.2%
2.1%

Real Estate

1.7%
1.1%

Technology

EIMI.L
35.0%
IEMA.L
36.8%

Financial Services

EIMI.L
18.4%
IEMA.L
19.4%

Consumer Cyclical

EIMI.L
9.6%
IEMA.L
9.6%

Industrials

EIMI.L
8.9%
IEMA.L
7.5%

Basic Materials

EIMI.L
6.9%
IEMA.L
6.5%

Communication Services

EIMI.L
6.4%
IEMA.L
6.9%

Energy

EIMI.L
3.9%
IEMA.L
4.1%

Healthcare

EIMI.L
3.7%
IEMA.L
2.9%

Consumer Defensive

EIMI.L
3.3%
IEMA.L
3.0%

Utilities

EIMI.L
2.2%
IEMA.L
2.1%

Real Estate

EIMI.L
1.7%
IEMA.L
1.1%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF

iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD (Acc)

Often compared with EIMI.L:
EIMI.L vs. VFEA.DEEIMI.L vs. CSPX.LEIMI.L vs. AVEMEIMI.L vs. SWRD.LEIMI.L vs. VWOEIMI.L vs. VFEG.LEIMI.L vs. AEME.L
Often compared with IEMA.L:
IEMA.L vs. IEMGIEMA.L vs. MWEQ.LIEMA.L vs. VWOIEMA.L vs. EEMIEMA.L vs. GLDIEMA.L vs. FBTU.LIEMA.L vs. IEVL.L

Return for Risk

EIMI.L vs. IEMA.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
EIMI.L
EIMI.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
EIMI.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8080
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EIMI.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
EIMI.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
EIMI.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
EIMI.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
IEMA.L
IEMA.L Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
IEMA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IEMA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
IEMA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
IEMA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
IEMA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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.

EIMI.L vs. IEMA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L) and iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IEMA.L). 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.

EIMI.LIEMA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.56
2.65

-0.09

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.42
3.53

-0.11

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.47

1.48

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.88

4.09

-0.20

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.02

14.79

-0.77

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EIMI.L vs. IEMA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EIMI.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.56, which is comparable to the IEMA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EIMI.L and IEMA.L, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

EIMI.LIEMA.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.56

2.65

-0.09

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.42

0.40

+0.02

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.54

0.52

+0.02

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.36

0.30

+0.06

Drawdowns

EIMI.L vs. IEMA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EIMI.L drawdown since its inception was -38.73%, roughly equal to the maximum IEMA.L drawdown of -39.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EIMI.L and IEMA.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EIMI.LIEMA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-38.73%

-39.66%

+0.93%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.66%

-12.76%

+0.10%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.44%

-16.69%

-0.75%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.50%

-36.91%

+1.41%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-38.73%

-39.66%

+0.93%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.64%

-2.72%

+0.08%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-14.04%

-15.28%

+1.24%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.52%

3.53%

-0.01%

Volatility

EIMI.L vs. IEMA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L) is 8.18%, while iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IEMA.L) has a volatility of 8.63%. This indicates that EIMI.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IEMA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

EIMI.LIEMA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.18%

8.63%

-0.45%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.71%

17.01%

-0.30%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.23%

19.68%

-0.45%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.31%

18.73%

-0.42%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.15%

19.58%

-0.43%

EIMI.L vs. IEMA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both EIMI.L and IEMA.L have an expense ratio of 0.18%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

EIMI.L vs. IEMA.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither EIMI.L nor IEMA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

With a correlation of 0.99, EIMI.L and IEMA.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Both ETFs have the same 0.18% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

EIMI.L and IEMA.L have the same expense ratio: 0.18% per year.

EIMI.L tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index, while IEMA.L tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Index.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EIMI.L and IEMA.L

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