EMIM.L vs. ROLG.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

EMIM.L (iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc)) and ROLG.L (iShares Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Swap UCITS ETF USD) are both exchange-traded funds - EMIM.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM NR USD, while ROLG.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMIM.L returned 8.76%/yr vs 14.55%/yr for ROLG.L. At a 0.27 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMIM.L charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.28%/yr for ROLG.L.

Performance

EMIM.L vs. ROLG.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 iShares Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Swap UCITS ETF USD (ROLG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMIM.L achieves a 24.23% return, which is significantly lower than ROLG.L's 27.75% 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%

ROLG.L

• 1D: -1.64%
• 1M: -1.90%
• YTD: 27.75%
• 6M: 27.51%
• 1Y: 44.31%
• 3Y*: 14.24%
• 5Y*: 14.55%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
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%	-3.80%
ROLG.L iShares Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Swap UCITS ETF USD	27.75%	8.64%	6.25%	-7.36%	30.51%	29.23%	-2.41%	1.84%	-9.45%

Correlation

The correlation between EMIM.L and ROLG.L is -0.05, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.05
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.14
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.19
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 4, 2018	0.27

The correlation between EMIM.L and ROLG.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.05 (1 year) to 0.27 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

EMIM.L vs. ROLG.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: 87
EMIM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
EMIM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
EMIM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 90
EMIM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
EMIM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 83

ROLG.L

ROLG.L Risk / Return Rank: 83
ROLG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
ROLG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
ROLG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 80
ROLG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
ROLG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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. ROLG.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 Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Swap UCITS ETF USD (ROLG.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	ROLG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.04	2.65	+0.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.91	3.27	+0.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	1.47	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.63	6.47	-1.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.57	18.28	-1.71
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current EMIM.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.04, which is comparable to the ROLG.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMIM.L and ROLG.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EMIM.L	ROLG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.04	2.65	+0.39
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.55	0.82	-0.27
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	0.59	-0.10

Drawdowns

EMIM.L vs. ROLG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMIM.L drawdown since its inception was -31.70%, which is greater than ROLG.L's maximum drawdown of -22.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMIM.L and ROLG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMIM.L	ROLG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.70%	-22.66%	-9.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.92%	-6.81%	-4.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.56%	-13.27%	-2.29%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.98%	-19.85%	-2.13%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-26.46%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.39%	-4.56%	+2.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.71%	-8.98%	+0.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.06%	2.42%	+0.64%

Volatility

EMIM.L vs. ROLG.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (EMIM.L) has a higher volatility of 7.03% compared to iShares Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Swap UCITS ETF USD (ROLG.L) at 5.90%. This indicates that EMIM.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ROLG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMIM.L	ROLG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.03%	5.90%	+1.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.14%	13.98%	+0.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.67%	16.69%	-0.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.82%	17.69%	-1.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.81%	16.98%	+0.83%

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

EMIM.L has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than ROLG.L's 0.28% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMIM.L vs. ROLG.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMIM.L and ROLG.L in my portfolio?

EMIM.L and ROLG.L have a correlation of -0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, EMIM.L or ROLG.L?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMIM.L or ROLG.L?

EMIM.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.28% for ROLG.L.

What is the main difference between EMIM.L and ROLG.L?

EMIM.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while ROLG.L is Commodities. EMIM.L tracks MSCI EM NR USD, while ROLG.L tracks Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for EMIM.L and 0.28% for ROLG.L.