ENZL vs. EEMA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ENZL (iShares MSCI New Zealand ETF) and EEMA (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds from iShares - ENZL tracks the MSCI New Zealand Investable Market Index while EEMA tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ENZL returned 3.34%/yr vs 10.80%/yr for EEMA. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.50% expense ratio.

Performance

ENZL vs. EEMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI New Zealand ETF (ENZL) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ENZL achieves a -0.60% return, which is significantly lower than EEMA's 27.78% return. Over the past 10 years, ENZL has underperformed EEMA with an annualized return of 3.34%, while EEMA has yielded a comparatively higher 10.80% annualized return.

ENZL

• 1D: -1.64%
• 1M: 0.88%
• YTD: -0.60%
• 6M: -1.29%
• 1Y: 3.15%
• 3Y*: -0.29%
• 5Y*: -4.24%
• 10Y*: 3.34%

EEMA

• 1D: -1.17%
• 1M: 9.00%
• YTD: 27.78%
• 6M: 30.96%
• 1Y: 56.77%
• 3Y*: 24.08%
• 5Y*: 7.05%
• 10Y*: 10.80%

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

ENZL vs. EEMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ENZL iShares MSCI New Zealand ETF	-0.60%	2.47%	-4.86%	2.95%	-16.18%	-11.39%	20.04%	30.09%	0.35%	24.04%
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	27.78%	33.27%	10.23%	6.57%	-21.49%	-4.22%	25.17%	18.60%	-15.76%	43.41%

Correlation

The correlation between ENZL and EEMA is 0.57, 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	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.52
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 10, 2012	0.47

The correlation between ENZL and EEMA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.47 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

ENZL vs. EEMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ENZL	EEMA
Utilities	29.0%	1.8%
Healthcare	26.1%	3.7%
Industrials	19.0%	8.8%
Real Estate	12.6%	0.8%
Basic Materials	3.8%	4.5%
Communication Services	3.7%	6.0%
Energy	2.0%	3.2%
Financial Services	1.4%	15.9%
Consumer Cyclical	0.9%	11.3%
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	2.8%
Technology	0.6%	41.2%

Return for Risk

ENZL vs. EEMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

ENZL

ENZL Risk / Return Rank: 11
ENZL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
ENZL Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
ENZL Omega Ratio Rank: 11
ENZL Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
ENZL Martin Ratio Rank: 12

EEMA

EEMA Risk / Return Rank: 81
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 82
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

ENZL vs. EEMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI New Zealand ETF (ENZL) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA). 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.

	ENZL	EEMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.20	2.80	-2.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.39	3.64	-3.25
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.05	1.50	-0.46
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.25	3.99	-3.74
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.70	15.03	-14.34
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ENZL vs. EEMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ENZL Sharpe Ratio is 0.20, which is lower than the EEMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ENZL and EEMA, 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

	ENZL	EEMA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.20	2.80	-2.60
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.23	0.35	-0.58
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.16	0.52	-0.36
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.37	0.37	-0.01

Drawdowns

ENZL vs. EEMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ENZL drawdown since its inception was -42.44%, roughly equal to the maximum EEMA drawdown of -44.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ENZL and EEMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	ENZL	EEMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.44%	-44.18%	+1.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.90%	-14.30%	+1.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.67%	-20.23%	-0.44%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-36.86%	-40.67%	+3.81%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-42.44%	-44.18%	+1.74%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-29.65%	-1.17%	-28.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.78%	-13.97%	+1.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.54%	3.79%	+0.75%

Volatility

ENZL vs. EEMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI New Zealand ETF (ENZL) is 6.01%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) has a volatility of 8.53%. This indicates that ENZL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EEMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ENZL	EEMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.01%	8.53%	-2.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.02%	17.40%	-4.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.97%	20.39%	-4.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.59%	20.41%	-1.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.44%	20.87%	-0.43%

ENZL vs. EEMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both ENZL and EEMA have an expense ratio of 0.50%.

Dividends

ENZL vs. EEMA - Dividend Comparison

ENZL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.25%, more than EEMA's 1.16% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	1.16%	1.48%	1.74%	2.02%	1.78%	2.19%	1.15%	1.86%	2.17%	1.74%	1.74%	2.44%
ENZL iShares MSCI New Zealand ETF	2.25%	2.23%	2.13%	3.00%	1.62%	2.46%	1.66%	3.35%	3.60%	3.69%	4.79%	4.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ENZL and EEMA in my portfolio?

ENZL and EEMA have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ENZL or EEMA?

EEMA has higher volatility (8.53%) compared to ENZL (6.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ENZL dropped -42.44% vs EEMA's -44.18%.

Which ETF is better, ENZL or EEMA?

On 10-year performance, EEMA leads with 10.80% vs 3.34% for ENZL. Both ETFs have the same 0.50% expense ratio. On volatility, ENZL has been the lower-risk option at 6.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ENZL or EEMA?

Over the 10-year period, EEMA has performed better with a 10.80% return vs 3.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ENZL or EEMA?

ENZL and EEMA have the same expense ratio: 0.50% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ENZL or EEMA?

ENZL has the higher dividend yield at 2.25%, compared with 1.16% for EEMA.

What is the main difference between ENZL and EEMA?

ENZL tracks MSCI New Zealand Investable Market Index, while EEMA tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EEMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.80 vs 0.20), 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.