ESPS.L vs. CEMA.L
ESPS.L (Invesco MSCI Pacific Ex Japan ESG Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc) and CEMA.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - ESPS.L tracks the MSCI Pacific Ex Japan NR USD while CEMA.L tracks the MSCI EM Asia Index Net. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ESPS.L returned 6.22%/yr vs 9.50%/yr for CEMA.L. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ESPS.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CEMA.L.
Performance
ESPS.L vs. CEMA.L - Performance Comparison
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%
ESPS.L vs. CEMA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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
Basic Materials
Real Estate
Industrials
Consumer Cyclical
Healthcare
Energy
Consumer Defensive
Communication Services
Utilities
Technology
Financial Services
ESPS.L
CEMA.L
Basic Materials
ESPS.L
CEMA.L
Real Estate
ESPS.L
CEMA.L
Industrials
ESPS.L
CEMA.L
Consumer Cyclical
ESPS.L
CEMA.L
Healthcare
ESPS.L
CEMA.L
Energy
ESPS.L
CEMA.L
Consumer Defensive
ESPS.L
CEMA.L
Communication Services
ESPS.L
CEMA.L
Utilities
ESPS.L
CEMA.L
Technology
ESPS.L
CEMA.L
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
ESPS.L
CEMA.L
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.L | CEMA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ESPS.L | CEMA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
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.L | CEMA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest 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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.28% | -1.07% | -2.21% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.55% | -11.05% | +6.50% |
Ulcer IndexDepth 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.L | CEMA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
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.
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.
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