PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EWL vs. EDEN
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EWL vs. EDEN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Switzerland ETF (EWL) and iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EWL achieves a 4.60% return, which is significantly higher than EDEN's -3.05% return. Over the past 10 years, EWL has outperformed EDEN with an annualized return of 10.14%, while EDEN has yielded a comparatively lower 9.22% annualized return.


EWL

1D
-0.30%
1M
1.55%
YTD
4.60%
6M
7.45%
1Y
13.57%
3Y*
12.47%
5Y*
6.50%
10Y*
10.14%

EDEN

1D
-0.01%
1M
-1.61%
YTD
-3.05%
6M
-2.55%
1Y
-6.97%
3Y*
2.87%
5Y*
2.08%
10Y*
9.22%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EWL vs. EDEN - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EWL
iShares MSCI Switzerland ETF
4.60%32.92%-2.80%17.67%-18.89%20.20%11.80%31.58%-9.21%23.34%
EDEN
iShares MSCI Denmark ETF
-3.05%10.58%-3.94%17.99%-11.47%14.81%42.56%24.37%-14.43%35.39%

Correlation

The correlation between EWL and EDEN is 0.69, 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

0.69

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

0.61

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

0.67

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

0.68

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 26, 2012

0.68

The correlation between EWL and EDEN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

EWL vs. EDEN - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EWL
EDEN

Healthcare

38.8%
34.8%

Financial Services

18.6%
16.2%

Consumer Defensive

14.9%
4.9%

Industrials

12.0%
31.3%

Basic Materials

6.6%
4.8%

Consumer Cyclical

5.4%
2.0%

Communication Services

1.3%

-

Real Estate

0.9%

-

Technology

0.9%
1.1%

Utilities

0.4%
3.9%

Energy

-

1.1%

Healthcare

EWL
38.8%
EDEN
34.8%

Financial Services

EWL
18.6%
EDEN
16.2%

Consumer Defensive

EWL
14.9%
EDEN
4.9%

Industrials

EWL
12.0%
EDEN
31.3%

Basic Materials

EWL
6.6%
EDEN
4.8%

Consumer Cyclical

EWL
5.4%
EDEN
2.0%

Communication Services

EWL
1.3%
EDEN

-

Real Estate

EWL
0.9%
EDEN

-

Technology

EWL
0.9%
EDEN
1.1%

Utilities

EWL
0.4%
EDEN
3.9%

Energy

EWL

-

EDEN
1.1%

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

EWL vs. EDEN — Risk / Return Rank

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

EWL
EWL Risk / Return Rank: 2626
Overall Rank
EWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2727
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 2626
Sortino Ratio Rank
EWL Omega Ratio Rank: 2525
Omega Ratio Rank
EWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
EWL Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
Martin Ratio Rank

EDEN
EDEN Risk / Return Rank: 66
Overall Rank
EDEN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EDEN Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
Sortino Ratio Rank
EDEN Omega Ratio Rank: 66
Omega Ratio Rank
EDEN Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
Calmar Ratio Rank
EDEN Martin Ratio Rank: 66
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.

EWL vs. EDEN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Switzerland ETF (EWL) and iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.


EWLEDENDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.19

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.63

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.15

0.96

+0.19

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.01

-0.33

+1.34

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.24

-0.72

+3.96

EWL vs. EDEN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EWL Sharpe Ratio is 0.85, which is higher than the EDEN Sharpe Ratio of -0.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EWL and EDEN, 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...

Drawdowns

EWL vs. EDEN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EWL drawdown since its inception was -51.62%, which is greater than EDEN's maximum drawdown of -36.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EWL and EDEN.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EWLEDENDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-51.62%

-36.61%

-15.01%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.48%

-21.17%

+7.69%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.48%

-29.31%

+15.83%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.99%

-36.61%

+7.62%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-28.99%

-36.61%

+7.62%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.63%

-13.55%

+9.92%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.08%

-7.37%

-3.71%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.22%

10.27%

-6.05%

Volatility

EWL vs. EDEN - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Switzerland ETF (EWL) and iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN) have volatilities of 5.12% and 4.93%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EWLEDENDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.12%

4.93%

+0.19%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.70%

15.72%

-3.02%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.09%

20.90%

-4.81%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.13%

20.25%

-4.12%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.47%

19.41%

-2.94%

EWL vs. EDEN - Expense Ratio Comparison

EWL has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than EDEN's 0.53% expense ratio.


Dividends

EWL vs. EDEN - Dividend Comparison

EWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.63%, less than EDEN's 2.87% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EDEN
iShares MSCI Denmark ETF
2.87%2.79%1.50%1.92%1.47%0.74%0.42%2.36%2.01%2.03%1.28%1.46%
EWL
iShares MSCI Switzerland ETF
1.63%1.71%2.21%2.12%2.04%1.73%1.45%1.85%2.56%2.05%2.75%2.58%

Frequently Asked Questions


EWL and EDEN have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EWL has higher volatility (5.12%) compared to EDEN (4.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EWL dropped -51.62% vs EDEN's -36.61%.

On 10-year performance, EWL leads with 10.14% vs 9.22% for EDEN. On fees, EWL is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, EDEN has been the lower-risk option at 4.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, EWL has performed better with a 10.14% return vs 9.22%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EWL is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for EDEN.

EDEN has the higher dividend yield at 2.87%, compared with 1.63% for EWL.

EWL tracks MSCI Switzerland Index, while EDEN tracks MSCI Denmark IMI 25/50 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EWL and 0.53% for EDEN.

EWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.85 vs -0.34), 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 EWL and EDEN

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