EWM vs. AAAU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EWM (iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF) and AAAU (Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EWM is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Malaysia Index, while AAAU is a Precious Metals fund tracking the LBMA Gold PM Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EWM returned 4.53%/yr vs 18.39%/yr for AAAU. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EWM charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for AAAU.

Performance

EWM vs. AAAU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (EWM) and Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EWM achieves a 2.45% return, which is significantly lower than AAAU's 2.94% return.

EWM

• 1D: -2.37%
• 1M: -5.11%
• YTD: 2.45%
• 6M: 6.54%
• 1Y: 20.74%
• 3Y*: 14.49%
• 5Y*: 4.53%
• 10Y*: 2.59%

AAAU

• 1D: -1.02%
• 1M: -1.68%
• YTD: 2.94%
• 6M: 5.50%
• 1Y: 32.29%
• 3Y*: 31.37%
• 5Y*: 18.39%
• 10Y*: —

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

EWM vs. AAAU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
EWM iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF	2.45%	15.74%	19.46%	-3.61%	-6.00%	-7.40%	3.12%	-1.41%	-5.82%
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF	2.94%	64.06%	26.91%	12.96%	-0.50%	-4.01%	25.02%	18.17%	9.20%

Correlation

The correlation between EWM and AAAU is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.27
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.24
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.25
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 16, 2018	0.21

EWM vs. AAAU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EWM	AAAU
Financial Services	46.6%	-
Industrials	11.1%	-
Utilities	10.8%	-
Basic Materials	8.9%	-
Consumer Defensive	7.3%	-
Communication Services	6.6%	-
Energy	3.9%	-
Healthcare	3.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	1.1%	-
Real Estate	-	100.0%
Technology	-	-

Return for Risk

EWM vs. AAAU — Risk / Return Rank

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

EWM

EWM Risk / Return Rank: 45
EWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
EWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
EWM Omega Ratio Rank: 40
EWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
EWM Martin Ratio Rank: 49

AAAU

AAAU Risk / Return Rank: 32
AAAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
AAAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
AAAU Omega Ratio Rank: 36
AAAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
AAAU Martin Ratio Rank: 29

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.

EWM vs. AAAU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (EWM) and Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU). 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.

	EWM	AAAU	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.49	1.23	+0.26
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.09	1.63	+0.46
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.25	+0.02
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.65	1.70	+0.96
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	8.22	4.21	+4.01
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EWM vs. AAAU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EWM Sharpe Ratio is 1.49, which is comparable to the AAAU Sharpe Ratio of 1.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EWM and AAAU, 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

	EWM	AAAU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.49	1.23	+0.26
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.33	1.04	-0.71
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.16	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.07	1.09	-1.02

Drawdowns

EWM vs. AAAU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EWM drawdown since its inception was -89.19%, which is greater than AAAU's maximum drawdown of -21.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EWM and AAAU.

Drawdown Indicators

	EWM	AAAU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-89.19%	-21.63%	-67.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.86%	-19.13%	+11.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.31%	-19.13%	-2.18%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.76%	-20.94%	-1.82%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-43.81%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.46%	-17.68%	+8.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.82%	-6.18%	-25.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.53%	7.69%	-5.16%

Volatility

EWM vs. AAAU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (EWM) is 4.15%, while Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF (AAAU) has a volatility of 5.50%. This indicates that EWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AAAU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EWM	AAAU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.15%	5.50%	-1.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.86%	22.94%	-12.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.99%	26.33%	-12.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.70%	17.83%	-4.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.29%	16.99%	-0.70%

EWM vs. AAAU - Expense Ratio Comparison

EWM has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than AAAU's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

EWM vs. AAAU - Dividend Comparison

EWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.33%, while AAAU has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AAAU Goldman Sachs Physical Gold ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EWM iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF	3.33%	3.41%	3.32%	3.47%	3.00%	6.48%	1.89%	2.91%	3.84%	5.58%	5.97%	37.54%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EWM and AAAU in my portfolio?

EWM and AAAU have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EWM or AAAU?

AAAU has higher volatility (5.50%) compared to EWM (4.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EWM dropped -89.19% vs AAAU's -21.63%.

Which ETF is better, EWM or AAAU?

On 5-year performance, AAAU leads with 18.39% vs 4.53% for EWM. On fees, AAAU is cheaper at 0.18% per year. On volatility, EWM has been the lower-risk option at 4.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EWM or AAAU?

Over the 5-year period, AAAU has performed better with a 18.39% return vs 4.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EWM or AAAU?

AAAU is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for EWM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EWM or AAAU?

EWM has the higher dividend yield at 3.33%, compared with 0.00% for AAAU.

What is the main difference between EWM and AAAU?

EWM is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while AAAU is Precious Metals. EWM tracks MSCI Malaysia Index, while AAAU tracks LBMA Gold PM Price. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Goldman Sachs. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for EWM and 0.18% for AAAU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.49 vs 1.23), 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.