EMIM.L vs. CEA1.L
EMIM.L (iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc)) and CEA1.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - EMIM.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM NR USD, while CEA1.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EMIM.L returned 11.09%/yr vs 12.09%/yr for CEA1.L. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. EMIM.L charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CEA1.L.
Performance
EMIM.L vs. CEA1.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMIM.L achieves a 24.23% return, which is significantly lower than CEA1.L's 30.56% return. Over the past 10 years, EMIM.L has underperformed CEA1.L with an annualized return of 11.09%, while CEA1.L has yielded a comparatively higher 12.09% annualized return.
EMIM.L
- 1D
- -1.35%
- 1M
- 5.54%
- YTD
- 24.23%
- 6M
- 26.48%
- 1Y
- 50.85%
- 3Y*
- 20.15%
- 5Y*
- 8.76%
- 10Y*
- 11.09%
CEA1.L
- 1D
- -1.69%
- 1M
- 8.28%
- YTD
- 30.56%
- 6M
- 33.05%
- 1Y
- 59.80%
- 3Y*
- 23.16%
- 5Y*
- 9.12%
- 10Y*
- 12.09%
EMIM.L vs. CEA1.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMIM.L iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) | 24.23% | 23.35% | 9.18% | 4.93% | -10.17% | 0.74% | 14.91% | 12.69% | -9.32% | 24.72% |
CEA1.L iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) | 30.56% | 25.23% | 13.67% | 0.79% | -11.96% | -4.22% | 23.90% | 13.81% | -10.88% | 29.65% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMIM.L and CEA1.L is 0.97 - 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 | 0.97 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.97 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.97 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.97 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 10, 2014 | 0.96 |
The correlation between EMIM.L and CEA1.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
EMIM.L vs. CEA1.L — Risk / Return Rank
EMIM.L
CEA1.L
EMIM.L vs. CEA1.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (EMIM.L) and iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.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.
| EMIM.L | CEA1.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.19 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.20 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.57 | 1.58 | -0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.63 | 5.09 | -0.46 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 16.57 | 17.73 | -1.16 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| EMIM.L | CEA1.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.04 | 3.23 | -0.19 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.55 | 0.51 | +0.04 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.62 | 0.65 | -0.03 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.49 | 0.53 | -0.04 |
Drawdowns
EMIM.L vs. CEA1.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMIM.L drawdown since its inception was -31.70%, smaller than the maximum CEA1.L drawdown of -33.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMIM.L and CEA1.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMIM.L | CEA1.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -31.70% | -33.94% | +2.24% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.92% | -11.68% | +0.76% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.56% | -17.35% | +1.79% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -21.98% | -28.87% | +6.89% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -26.46% | -33.94% | +7.48% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.39% | -2.67% | +0.28% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.71% | -11.09% | +2.38% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.06% | 3.36% | -0.30% |
Volatility
EMIM.L vs. CEA1.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (EMIM.L) is 7.03%, while iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.L) has a volatility of 8.22%. This indicates that EMIM.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CEA1.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMIM.L | CEA1.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.03% | 8.22% | -1.19% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.14% | 15.73% | -1.59% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.67% | 18.45% | -1.78% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.82% | 17.81% | -1.99% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.81% | 18.53% | -0.72% |
EMIM.L vs. CEA1.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMIM.L has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than CEA1.L's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
EMIM.L vs. CEA1.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither EMIM.L nor CEA1.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.97, EMIM.L and CEA1.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.
On fees, EMIM.L is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
EMIM.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for CEA1.L.
EMIM.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while CEA1.L is Asia Pacific Equities. EMIM.L tracks MSCI EM NR USD, while CEA1.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for EMIM.L and 0.20% for CEA1.L.
Find the right allocation for EMIM.L and CEA1.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