PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

EMAS.L vs. ITWN.L

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

EMAS.L (SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF) and ITWN.L (iShares MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - EMAS.L tracks the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD while ITWN.L tracks the MSCI Taiwan NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EMAS.L returned 15.67%/yr vs 22.53%/yr for ITWN.L. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMAS.L charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.74%/yr for ITWN.L.

Performance

EMAS.L vs. ITWN.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 MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF (ITWN.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

EMAS.L is traded in GBP, while ITWN.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the ITWN.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 81.22% return, which is significantly higher than ITWN.L's 69.22% return. Over the past 10 years, EMAS.L has underperformed ITWN.L with an annualized return of 15.67%, while ITWN.L has yielded a comparatively higher 22.53% annualized return.

EMAS.L

1D
38.71%
1M
44.55%
YTD
81.22%
6M
83.42%
1Y
109.79%
3Y*
35.88%
5Y*
15.70%
10Y*
15.67%

ITWN.L

1D
-1.19%
1M
9.11%
YTD
69.22%
6M
73.41%
1Y
108.23%
3Y*
41.73%
5Y*
22.75%
10Y*
22.53%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EMAS.L
SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF		81.22%22.99%12.86%0.62%-12.26%-4.94%23.72%13.20%-9.78%29.84%
ITWN.L
iShares MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF		69.22%22.61%25.77%21.84%-21.08%29.84%30.38%29.88%-3.90%16.56%

Correlation

The correlation between EMAS.L and ITWN.L is 0.76, 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

0.76

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

0.72

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

0.71

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

0.77

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 16, 2011

0.80

The correlation between EMAS.L and ITWN.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors
EMAS.L
ITWN.L

Technology

52.1%
82.6%

Financial Services

13.2%
10.4%

Consumer Cyclical

9.6%
0.9%

Industrials

6.5%
1.8%

Communication Services

6.1%
1.3%

Basic Materials

3.3%
1.8%

Healthcare

2.8%
0.5%

Energy

2.4%

-

Consumer Defensive

2.1%
0.7%

Utilities

1.3%

-

Real Estate

0.6%

-

Technology

EMAS.L
52.1%
ITWN.L
82.6%

Financial Services

EMAS.L
13.2%
ITWN.L
10.4%

Consumer Cyclical

EMAS.L
9.6%
ITWN.L
0.9%

Industrials

EMAS.L
6.5%
ITWN.L
1.8%

Communication Services

EMAS.L
6.1%
ITWN.L
1.3%

Basic Materials

EMAS.L
3.3%
ITWN.L
1.8%

Healthcare

EMAS.L
2.8%
ITWN.L
0.5%

Energy

EMAS.L
2.4%
ITWN.L

-

Consumer Defensive

EMAS.L
2.1%
ITWN.L
0.7%

Utilities

EMAS.L
1.3%
ITWN.L

-

Real Estate

EMAS.L
0.6%
ITWN.L

-

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 MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF

Often compared with EMAS.L:
EMAS.L vs. SPYEMAS.L vs. ASEAEMAS.L vs. VFEM.LEMAS.L vs. SWDA.LEMAS.L vs. C300.LEMAS.L vs. VWCE.DEEMAS.L vs. IS3N.DE
Often compared with ITWN.L:
ITWN.L vs. QQQITWN.L vs. SPINXITWN.L vs. TSMITWN.L vs. VTIITWN.L vs. VWCE.DEITWN.L vs. FLXT.DEITWN.L vs. IUIT.L

Return for Risk

EMAS.L vs. ITWN.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: 9797
Overall Rank
EMAS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
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: 9898
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMAS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9797
Martin Ratio Rank
ITWN.L
ITWN.L Risk / Return Rank: 9797
Overall Rank
ITWN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ITWN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9696
Sortino Ratio Rank
ITWN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9696
Omega Ratio Rank
ITWN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9898
Calmar Ratio Rank
ITWN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9696
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. ITWN.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 MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF (ITWN.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

EMAS.LITWN.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.85
4.41

-1.56

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
7.46
5.07

+2.40

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

2.09

1.70

+0.39

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

10.86

11.49

-0.64

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

35.46

30.65

+4.81

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

The current EMAS.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.85, which is lower than the ITWN.L Sharpe Ratio of 4.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMAS.L and ITWN.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...

Drawdowns

EMAS.L vs. ITWN.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMAS.L drawdown since its inception was -53.67%, smaller than the maximum ITWN.L drawdown of -72.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMAS.L and ITWN.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EMAS.LITWN.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-53.67%

-72.46%

+18.79%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.14%

-9.36%

-1.78%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.14%

-29.32%

+4.18%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.16%

-30.07%

+0.91%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.79%

-30.07%

-4.72%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-5.95%

+5.95%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-22.16%

-21.94%

-0.22%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.42%

3.52%

-0.10%

Volatility

EMAS.L vs. ITWN.L - Volatility Comparison

SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L) has a higher volatility of 33.13% compared to iShares MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF (ITWN.L) at 10.60%. This indicates that EMAS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ITWN.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

EMAS.LITWN.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

33.13%

10.60%

+22.53%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

35.89%

20.41%

+15.48%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

42.41%

24.48%

+17.93%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

28.52%

21.14%

+7.38%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.30%

20.46%

+3.84%

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

EMAS.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than ITWN.L's 0.74% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMAS.L vs. ITWN.L - Dividend Comparison

EMAS.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ITWN.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.89%.

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%
ITWN.L
iShares MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF		0.89%1.50%1.37%2.14%3.54%1.33%1.83%2.30%2.72%2.74%2.86%3.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

EMAS.L and ITWN.L have a correlation of 0.76, 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 0.74% for ITWN.L.

EMAS.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, while ITWN.L tracks MSCI Taiwan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for EMAS.L and 0.74% for ITWN.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMAS.L and ITWN.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