PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
EMLC vs. IWP
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

EMLC vs. IWP

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

EMLC (VanEck Vectors J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF) and IWP (iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMLC is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the J.P. Morgan Government Bond Index Emerging Markets Global Core Index, while IWP is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell Midcap Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EMLC returned 1.99%/yr vs 12.22%/yr for IWP. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMLC charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for IWP.

Performance

EMLC vs. IWP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Vectors J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (EMLC) and iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMLC achieves a -0.23% return, which is significantly lower than IWP's 1.66% return. Over the past 10 years, EMLC has underperformed IWP with an annualized return of 1.99%, while IWP has yielded a comparatively higher 12.22% annualized return.

EMLC

1D
-0.16%
1M
-1.80%
YTD
-0.23%
6M
1.29%
1Y
7.90%
3Y*
6.04%
5Y*
0.97%
10Y*
1.99%

IWP

1D
-0.06%
1M
1.28%
YTD
1.66%
6M
0.18%
1Y
2.82%
3Y*
15.01%
5Y*
5.99%
10Y*
12.22%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMLC vs. IWP - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EMLC
VanEck Vectors J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF		-0.23%18.81%-2.97%11.18%-10.58%-9.72%3.08%9.79%-7.57%13.84%
IWP
iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF		1.66%8.45%21.86%25.70%-26.90%12.60%35.25%35.04%-4.89%24.93%

Correlation

The correlation between EMLC and IWP is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.48

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

0.38

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

0.42

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

0.40

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2010

0.42

The correlation between EMLC and IWP shifts across timeframes, from 0.38 (3 years) to 0.48 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

VanEck Vectors J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF

iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF

Often compared with EMLC:
EMLC vs. LEMBEMLC vs. VWOBEMLC vs. EMBEMLC vs. EBNDEMLC vs. EMBDEMLC vs. EMHYEMLC vs. HYEM
Often compared with IWP:
IWP vs. VOTIWP vs. IWSIWP vs. VOIWP vs. IMCGIWP vs. IJKIWP vs. SCHGIWP vs. VOO

Return for Risk

EMLC vs. IWP — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
EMLC
EMLC Risk / Return Rank: 3333
Overall Rank
EMLC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3535
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMLC Sortino Ratio Rank: 3333
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMLC Omega Ratio Rank: 3737
Omega Ratio Rank
EMLC Calmar Ratio Rank: 2828
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMLC Martin Ratio Rank: 3232
Martin Ratio Rank
IWP
IWP Risk / Return Rank: 1212
Overall Rank
IWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1212
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 1212
Sortino Ratio Rank
IWP Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
IWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 1212
Calmar Ratio Rank
IWP Martin Ratio Rank: 1212
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.

EMLC vs. IWP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Vectors J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (EMLC) and iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP). 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.

EMLCIWPDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.14
0.17

+0.97

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.60
0.36

+1.24

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

1.04

+0.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.28

0.19

+1.09

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.34

0.56

+3.78

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMLC vs. IWP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMLC Sharpe Ratio is 1.14, which is higher than the IWP Sharpe Ratio of 0.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMLC and IWP, 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

EMLCIWPDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.14

0.17

+0.97

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.11

0.27

-0.16

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.20

0.57

-0.37

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.10

0.42

-0.32

Drawdowns

EMLC vs. IWP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMLC drawdown since its inception was -32.43%, smaller than the maximum IWP drawdown of -56.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMLC and IWP.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EMLCIWPDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-32.43%

-56.92%

+24.49%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.19%

-14.79%

+8.60%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-9.15%

-25.20%

+16.05%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.26%

-38.62%

+13.36%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-26.47%

-38.62%

+12.15%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.38%

-4.08%

-1.30%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-14.36%

-9.68%

-4.68%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.82%

5.08%

-3.26%

Volatility

EMLC vs. IWP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Vectors J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF (EMLC) is 2.20%, while iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IWP) has a volatility of 4.62%. This indicates that EMLC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

EMLCIWPDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.20%

4.62%

-2.42%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.08%

12.93%

-6.85%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

7.00%

16.71%

-9.71%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

9.13%

22.34%

-13.21%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

10.05%

21.70%

-11.65%

EMLC vs. IWP - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMLC has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than IWP's 0.23% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMLC vs. IWP - Dividend Comparison

EMLC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.26%, more than IWP's 0.33% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMLC
VanEck Vectors J.P. Morgan EM Local Currency Bond ETF		6.26%5.91%6.55%5.97%5.54%5.25%4.90%6.25%6.50%5.34%5.32%6.25%
IWP
iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF		0.33%0.37%0.40%0.54%0.77%0.30%0.38%0.59%1.02%0.78%1.16%0.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

EMLC and IWP have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IWP has higher volatility (4.62%) compared to EMLC (2.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMLC dropped -32.43% vs IWP's -56.92%.

On 10-year performance, IWP leads with 12.22% vs 1.99% for EMLC. On fees, IWP is cheaper at 0.23% per year. On volatility, EMLC has been the lower-risk option at 2.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IWP has performed better with a 12.22% return vs 1.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IWP is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for EMLC.

EMLC has the higher dividend yield at 6.26%, compared with 0.33% for IWP.

EMLC is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while IWP is Mid Cap Growth Equities. EMLC tracks J.P. Morgan Government Bond Index Emerging Markets Global Core Index, while IWP tracks Russell Midcap Growth Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for EMLC and 0.23% for IWP.

EMLC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.14 vs 0.17), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMLC and IWP

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