PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EMIM.L vs. PRAM.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EMIM.L vs. PRAM.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (EMIM.L) and Amundi Prime Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR (C) (PRAM.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with EMIM.L having a 24.23% return and PRAM.L slightly higher at 24.77%.


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%

PRAM.L

1D
-1.56%
1M
5.71%
YTD
24.77%
6M
26.35%
1Y
51.29%
3Y*
20.13%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMIM.L vs. PRAM.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
EMIM.L
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc)
24.23%23.35%9.18%4.93%-10.17%0.49%
PRAM.L
Amundi Prime Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR (C)
24.77%23.16%9.01%3.99%-8.64%0.00%

Correlation

The correlation between EMIM.L and PRAM.L is 0.94, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.94

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

0.80

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 20, 2021

0.68

Over the past year, EMIM.L and PRAM.L have become more correlated (0.94) than their long-term average of 0.68, meaning their price movements have been converging.

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. PRAM.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

EMIM.L
EMIM.L Risk / Return Rank: 8787
Overall Rank
EMIM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9090
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMIM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMIM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9090
Omega Ratio Rank
EMIM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8585
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMIM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
Martin Ratio Rank

PRAM.L
PRAM.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
PRAM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8181
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PRAM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
PRAM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7979
Omega Ratio Rank
PRAM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
PRAM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
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.

EMIM.L vs. PRAM.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 Amundi Prime Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR (C) (PRAM.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.LPRAM.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.20

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.28

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.57

1.52

+0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.63

4.98

-0.34

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

16.57

16.58

-0.02

EMIM.L vs. PRAM.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMIM.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.04, which is comparable to the PRAM.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMIM.L and PRAM.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


EMIM.LPRAM.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.04

2.84

+0.20

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.55

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.62

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.49

0.82

-0.33

Drawdowns

EMIM.L vs. PRAM.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMIM.L drawdown since its inception was -31.70%, which is greater than PRAM.L's maximum drawdown of -15.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMIM.L and PRAM.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMIM.LPRAM.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-31.70%

-15.77%

-15.93%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.92%

-10.26%

-0.66%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.56%

-15.77%

+0.21%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.98%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-26.46%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.39%

-2.78%

+0.39%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.71%

-4.79%

-3.92%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.06%

3.08%

-0.02%

Volatility

EMIM.L vs. PRAM.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (EMIM.L) is 7.03%, while Amundi Prime Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR (C) (PRAM.L) has a volatility of 7.80%. This indicates that EMIM.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PRAM.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EMIM.LPRAM.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.03%

7.80%

-0.77%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.14%

15.43%

-1.29%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.67%

18.02%

-1.35%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.82%

18.89%

-3.07%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.81%

18.89%

-1.08%

EMIM.L vs. PRAM.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMIM.L has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than PRAM.L's 0.10% expense ratio. However, 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. PRAM.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither EMIM.L nor PRAM.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.94, EMIM.L and PRAM.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, PRAM.L is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

PRAM.L is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for EMIM.L.

Both ETFs track MSCI EM NR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for EMIM.L and 0.10% for PRAM.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMIM.L and PRAM.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