PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
EMAS.L vs. IDAP.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

EMAS.L vs. IDAP.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EMAS.L (SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF) and IDAP.L (iShares Asia Pacific Dividend UCITS) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - EMAS.L tracks the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD while IDAP.L tracks the MSCI AC Asia Pacific NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EMAS.L returned 15.67%/yr vs 8.15%/yr for IDAP.L. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMAS.L charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for IDAP.L.

Performance

EMAS.L vs. IDAP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L) and iShares Asia Pacific Dividend UCITS (IDAP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

EMAS.L is traded in GBP, while IDAP.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the IDAP.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMAS.L achieves a 81.21% return, which is significantly higher than IDAP.L's 13.70% return. Over the past 10 years, EMAS.L has outperformed IDAP.L with an annualized return of 15.67%, while IDAP.L has yielded a comparatively lower 8.15% annualized return.

EMAS.L

1D
38.70%
1M
51.83%
YTD
81.21%
6M
83.22%
1Y
120.08%
3Y*
35.88%
5Y*
15.70%
10Y*
15.67%

IDAP.L

1D
-0.55%
1M
0.78%
YTD
13.70%
6M
13.88%
1Y
40.57%
3Y*
18.88%
5Y*
10.98%
10Y*
8.15%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMAS.L vs. IDAP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EMAS.L
SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF		81.21%22.99%12.85%0.63%-12.26%-4.94%23.72%13.21%-9.79%29.84%
IDAP.L
iShares Asia Pacific Dividend UCITS		13.70%20.45%8.04%7.81%9.70%4.37%-12.05%9.56%-10.20%6.88%

Correlation

The correlation between EMAS.L and IDAP.L is 0.51, 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

0.51

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

0.59

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

0.56

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

0.60

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 3, 2012

0.61

The correlation between EMAS.L and IDAP.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMAS.L vs. IDAP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
EMAS.L
IDAP.L

Technology

44.9%
1.6%

Financial Services

14.9%
30.9%

Consumer Cyclical

10.9%
10.9%

Industrials

7.5%
7.1%

Communication Services

7.1%
4.7%

Basic Materials

3.9%
16.1%

Healthcare

3.3%
3.5%

Energy

2.9%
5.1%

Consumer Defensive

2.5%
5.2%

Utilities

1.5%
4.5%

Real Estate

0.7%
10.6%

Technology

EMAS.L
44.9%
IDAP.L
1.6%

Financial Services

EMAS.L
14.9%
IDAP.L
30.9%

Consumer Cyclical

EMAS.L
10.9%
IDAP.L
10.9%

Industrials

EMAS.L
7.5%
IDAP.L
7.1%

Communication Services

EMAS.L
7.1%
IDAP.L
4.7%

Basic Materials

EMAS.L
3.9%
IDAP.L
16.1%

Healthcare

EMAS.L
3.3%
IDAP.L
3.5%

Energy

EMAS.L
2.9%
IDAP.L
5.1%

Consumer Defensive

EMAS.L
2.5%
IDAP.L
5.2%

Utilities

EMAS.L
1.5%
IDAP.L
4.5%

Real Estate

EMAS.L
0.7%
IDAP.L
10.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF

iShares Asia Pacific Dividend UCITS

Often compared with EMAS.L:
EMAS.L vs. SPYEMAS.L vs. ASEAEMAS.L vs. SWDA.LEMAS.L vs. VFEM.LEMAS.L vs. VWCE.DEEMAS.L vs. IS3N.DEEMAS.L vs. C300.L
Often compared with IDAP.L:
IDAP.L vs. EWLIDAP.L vs. VAPX.ASIDAP.L vs. ASDV.LIDAP.L vs. DVYAIDAP.L vs. SEDY.LIDAP.L vs. HYGWIDAP.L vs. LCAL.L

Return for Risk

EMAS.L vs. IDAP.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
EMAS.L
EMAS.L Risk / Return Rank: 9595
Overall Rank
EMAS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8686
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMAS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMAS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
EMAS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9797
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMAS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9696
Martin Ratio Rank
IDAP.L
IDAP.L Risk / Return Rank: 8686
Overall Rank
IDAP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8989
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IDAP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8989
Sortino Ratio Rank
IDAP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8686
Omega Ratio Rank
IDAP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
IDAP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8484
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.

EMAS.L vs. IDAP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L) and iShares Asia Pacific Dividend UCITS (IDAP.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.

EMAS.LIDAP.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.85
3.36

-0.51

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
7.46
4.52

+2.95

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

2.09

1.59

+0.49

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

10.86

5.17

+5.70

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

35.47

19.94

+15.53

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

EMAS.L vs. IDAP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMAS.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.85, which is comparable to the IDAP.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMAS.L and IDAP.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

EMAS.LIDAP.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.85

3.36

-0.51

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.63

0.83

-0.20

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.71

0.50

+0.20

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.58

0.29

+0.29

Drawdowns

EMAS.L vs. IDAP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMAS.L drawdown since its inception was -34.79%, smaller than the maximum IDAP.L drawdown of -55.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMAS.L and IDAP.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EMAS.LIDAP.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.79%

-55.27%

+20.48%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.14%

-7.82%

-3.32%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.88%

-17.11%

-0.77%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.16%

-17.11%

-12.05%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.79%

-38.20%

+3.41%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-2.68%

+2.68%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.69%

-8.42%

-3.27%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.42%

2.03%

+1.39%

Volatility

EMAS.L vs. IDAP.L - Volatility Comparison

SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L) has a higher volatility of 33.13% compared to iShares Asia Pacific Dividend UCITS (IDAP.L) at 4.05%. This indicates that EMAS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IDAP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

EMAS.LIDAP.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

33.13%

4.05%

+29.08%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

35.88%

9.50%

+26.38%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

42.40%

12.01%

+30.39%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.78%

13.25%

+11.53%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.18%

16.12%

+6.06%

EMAS.L vs. IDAP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMAS.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than IDAP.L's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMAS.L vs. IDAP.L - Dividend Comparison

EMAS.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IDAP.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.63%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMAS.L
SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
IDAP.L
iShares Asia Pacific Dividend UCITS		3.63%4.22%5.36%5.72%6.92%5.59%3.49%5.52%6.04%4.55%4.54%5.47%

Frequently Asked Questions

EMAS.L and IDAP.L have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, EMAS.L is cheaper at 0.55% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

EMAS.L is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for IDAP.L.

EMAS.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, while IDAP.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Pacific NR USD. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for EMAS.L and 0.59% for IDAP.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMAS.L and IDAP.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