EMAS.L vs. IS3N.DE
Compare and contrast key facts about SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L) and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (IS3N.DE).
EMAS.L and IS3N.DE are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. EMAS.L is a passively managed fund by State Street that tracks the performance of the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. It was launched on May 13, 2011. IS3N.DE is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market (IMI). It was launched on May 30, 2014. Both EMAS.L and IS3N.DE are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: EMAS.L or IS3N.DE.
Key characteristics
| EMAS.L | IS3N.DE | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 8.52% | 9.56% |
| 1Y Return | 11.45% | 12.91% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | -2.28% | 0.12% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 3.63% | 5.53% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 5.98% | 4.53% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 0.69 | 0.86 |
| Daily Std Dev | 13.88% | 12.81% |
| Max Drawdown | -34.79% | -35.06% |
| Current Drawdown | -19.39% | -5.11% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMAS.L and IS3N.DE is 0.92, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
EMAS.L vs. IS3N.DE - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, EMAS.L achieves a 8.52% return, which is significantly lower than IS3N.DE's 9.56% return. Over the past 10 years, EMAS.L has outperformed IS3N.DE with an annualized return of 5.98%, while IS3N.DE has yielded a comparatively lower 4.53% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
EMAS.L vs. IS3N.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMAS.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than IS3N.DE's 0.18% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
EMAS.L vs. IS3N.DE - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L) and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (IS3N.DE). 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.
Dividends
EMAS.L vs. IS3N.DE - Dividend Comparison
Neither EMAS.L nor IS3N.DE has paid dividends to shareholders.
Drawdowns
EMAS.L vs. IS3N.DE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMAS.L drawdown since its inception was -34.79%, roughly equal to the maximum IS3N.DE drawdown of -35.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMAS.L and IS3N.DE. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
EMAS.L vs. IS3N.DE - Volatility Comparison
SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L) has a higher volatility of 6.13% compared to iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (IS3N.DE) at 5.74%. This indicates that EMAS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IS3N.DE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.