PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ESPS.L vs. CEMA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ESPS.L vs. CEMA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco MSCI Pacific Ex Japan ESG Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc (ESPS.L) and iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ESPS.L achieves a 7.41% return, which is significantly lower than CEMA.L's 32.81% return.


ESPS.L

1D
-0.43%
1M
0.59%
YTD
7.41%
6M
8.29%
1Y
16.01%
3Y*
9.70%
5Y*
6.22%
10Y*

CEMA.L

1D
-1.07%
1M
12.69%
YTD
32.81%
6M
35.65%
1Y
64.47%
3Y*
23.70%
5Y*
9.50%
10Y*
12.50%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ESPS.L vs. CEMA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
ESPS.L
Invesco MSCI Pacific Ex Japan ESG Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc
7.41%10.52%7.35%2.26%1.34%5.87%
CEMA.L
iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc
32.81%24.43%14.40%1.32%-12.13%-12.02%

Correlation

The correlation between ESPS.L and CEMA.L is 0.54, 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

0.54

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

0.48

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

0.36

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2021

0.34

The correlation between ESPS.L and CEMA.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.34 (all time) to 0.54 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ESPS.L vs. CEMA.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ESPS.L
CEMA.L

Financial Services

50.7%
13.7%

Basic Materials

11.6%
3.4%

Real Estate

7.8%
0.7%

Industrials

7.2%
7.2%

Consumer Cyclical

6.8%
9.9%

Healthcare

4.0%
3.0%

Energy

3.0%
2.5%

Consumer Defensive

2.6%
2.2%

Communication Services

2.6%
6.5%

Utilities

2.2%
1.4%

Technology

1.4%
49.6%

Financial Services

ESPS.L
50.7%
CEMA.L
13.7%

Basic Materials

ESPS.L
11.6%
CEMA.L
3.4%

Real Estate

ESPS.L
7.8%
CEMA.L
0.7%

Industrials

ESPS.L
7.2%
CEMA.L
7.2%

Consumer Cyclical

ESPS.L
6.8%
CEMA.L
9.9%

Healthcare

ESPS.L
4.0%
CEMA.L
3.0%

Energy

ESPS.L
3.0%
CEMA.L
2.5%

Consumer Defensive

ESPS.L
2.6%
CEMA.L
2.2%

Communication Services

ESPS.L
2.6%
CEMA.L
6.5%

Utilities

ESPS.L
2.2%
CEMA.L
1.4%

Technology

ESPS.L
1.4%
CEMA.L
49.6%

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

ESPS.L vs. CEMA.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

ESPS.L
ESPS.L Risk / Return Rank: 4242
Overall Rank
ESPS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4242
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ESPS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4444
Sortino Ratio Rank
ESPS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4242
Omega Ratio Rank
ESPS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4444
Calmar Ratio Rank
ESPS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3939
Martin Ratio Rank

CEMA.L
CEMA.L Risk / Return Rank: 8686
Overall Rank
CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8989
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8787
Omega Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
CEMA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8484
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.

ESPS.L vs. CEMA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco MSCI Pacific Ex Japan ESG Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc (ESPS.L) and iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.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.


ESPS.LCEMA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.76

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.95

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

1.59

-0.32

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.12

5.54

-3.41

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.09

18.96

-12.87

ESPS.L vs. CEMA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ESPS.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.47, which is lower than the CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ESPS.L and CEMA.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


ESPS.LCEMA.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.47

3.24

-1.76

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.61

0.51

+0.09

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.65

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.67

0.49

+0.19

Drawdowns

ESPS.L vs. CEMA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ESPS.L drawdown since its inception was -17.76%, smaller than the maximum CEMA.L drawdown of -34.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ESPS.L and CEMA.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ESPS.LCEMA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-17.76%

-34.15%

+16.39%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.52%

-11.59%

+4.07%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.76%

-18.32%

+0.56%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.76%

-29.00%

+11.24%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.15%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.28%

-1.07%

-2.21%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.55%

-11.05%

+6.50%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.62%

3.39%

-0.77%

Volatility

ESPS.L vs. CEMA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco MSCI Pacific Ex Japan ESG Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc (ESPS.L) is 3.47%, while iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) has a volatility of 8.95%. This indicates that ESPS.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CEMA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ESPS.LCEMA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.47%

8.95%

-5.48%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.32%

17.04%

-8.72%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.81%

19.82%

-9.01%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.87%

18.50%

+0.37%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.87%

19.26%

-0.39%

ESPS.L vs. CEMA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

ESPS.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than CEMA.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

ESPS.L vs. CEMA.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither ESPS.L nor CEMA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


ESPS.L and CEMA.L have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ESPS.L is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ESPS.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for CEMA.L.

ESPS.L tracks MSCI Pacific Ex Japan NR USD, while CEMA.L tracks MSCI EM Asia Index Net. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for ESPS.L and 0.20% for CEMA.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ESPS.L and CEMA.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