PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

EIMI.L vs. SEMA.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

EIMI.L (iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF) and SEMA.L (iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (Acc)) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds from iShares - EIMI.L tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index while SEMA.L tracks the MSCI EM NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EIMI.L returned 10.26%/yr vs 10.09%/yr for SEMA.L. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.18% expense ratio.

Performance

EIMI.L vs. SEMA.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 (Acc) (SEMA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

EIMI.L is traded in USD, while SEMA.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the SEMA.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EIMI.L achieves a 24.25% return, which is significantly lower than SEMA.L's 25.73% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with EIMI.L having a 10.26% annualized return and SEMA.L not far behind at 10.09%.

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%

SEMA.L

1D
-1.36%
1M
5.47%
YTD
25.73%
6M
29.13%
1Y
52.49%
3Y*
24.04%
5Y*
7.44%
10Y*
10.09%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EIMI.L vs. SEMA.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%
SEMA.L
iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (Acc)		25.74%34.53%7.56%8.93%-20.28%-2.49%18.20%17.14%-14.38%36.27%

Correlation

The correlation between EIMI.L and SEMA.L is 0.96 - 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

0.96

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

0.96

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

0.95

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

0.94

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

0.94

The correlation between EIMI.L and SEMA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors
EIMI.L
SEMA.L

Technology

35.0%
41.3%

Financial Services

18.4%
18.2%

Consumer Cyclical

9.6%
9.0%

Industrials

8.9%
7.0%

Basic Materials

6.9%
6.0%

Communication Services

6.4%
6.4%

Energy

3.9%
3.6%

Healthcare

3.7%
2.7%

Consumer Defensive

3.3%
2.8%

Utilities

2.2%
2.0%

Real Estate

1.7%
1.1%

Technology

EIMI.L
35.0%
SEMA.L
41.3%

Financial Services

EIMI.L
18.4%
SEMA.L
18.2%

Consumer Cyclical

EIMI.L
9.6%
SEMA.L
9.0%

Industrials

EIMI.L
8.9%
SEMA.L
7.0%

Basic Materials

EIMI.L
6.9%
SEMA.L
6.0%

Communication Services

EIMI.L
6.4%
SEMA.L
6.4%

Energy

EIMI.L
3.9%
SEMA.L
3.6%

Healthcare

EIMI.L
3.7%
SEMA.L
2.7%

Consumer Defensive

EIMI.L
3.3%
SEMA.L
2.8%

Utilities

EIMI.L
2.2%
SEMA.L
2.0%

Real Estate

EIMI.L
1.7%
SEMA.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 (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 SEMA.L:
SEMA.L vs. EMIM.LSEMA.L vs. VFEG.LSEMA.L vs. VWRA.LSEMA.L vs. SWRD.MISEMA.L vs. EQQQ.LSEMA.L vs. EDIVSEMA.L vs. VWO

Return for Risk

EIMI.L vs. SEMA.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
SEMA.L
SEMA.L Risk / Return Rank: 8888
Overall Rank
SEMA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9191
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SEMA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8989
Sortino Ratio Rank
SEMA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9191
Omega Ratio Rank
SEMA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
SEMA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
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. SEMA.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 (Acc) (SEMA.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.LSEMA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.56
2.76

-0.20

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.42
3.64

-0.21

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.47

1.49

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.88

4.03

-0.14

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.02

14.89

-0.88

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. SEMA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EIMI.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.56, which is comparable to the SEMA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EIMI.L and SEMA.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.LSEMA.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.56

2.76

-0.20

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

+0.01

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.36

0.31

+0.04

Drawdowns

EIMI.L vs. SEMA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EIMI.L drawdown since its inception was -38.73%, roughly equal to the maximum SEMA.L drawdown of -39.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EIMI.L and SEMA.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EIMI.LSEMA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-38.73%

-39.72%

+0.99%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.66%

-12.96%

+0.30%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.44%

-16.41%

-1.03%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.50%

-36.96%

+1.46%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-38.73%

-39.72%

+0.99%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.64%

-2.67%

+0.03%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-14.04%

-14.99%

+0.95%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.52%

3.51%

+0.01%

Volatility

EIMI.L vs. SEMA.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L) and iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (Acc) (SEMA.L) have volatilities of 8.18% and 8.08%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

EIMI.LSEMA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.18%

8.08%

+0.10%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.71%

16.29%

+0.42%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.23%

18.93%

+0.30%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.31%

18.68%

-0.37%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.15%

19.57%

-0.42%

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

Both EIMI.L and SEMA.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. SEMA.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

With a correlation of 0.96, EIMI.L and SEMA.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 SEMA.L have the same expense ratio: 0.18% per year.

EIMI.L tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index, while SEMA.L tracks MSCI EM NR USD.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EIMI.L and SEMA.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