EWM vs. CNYA

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

EWM (iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF) and CNYA (iShares MSCI China A ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EWM is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Malaysia Index, while CNYA is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Inclusion Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EWM returned 2.08%/yr vs 5.28%/yr for CNYA. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EWM charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for CNYA.

Performance

EWM vs. CNYA - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EWM achieves a 2.60% return, which is significantly lower than CNYA's 3.41% return. Over the past 10 years, EWM has underperformed CNYA with an annualized return of 2.08%, while CNYA has yielded a comparatively higher 5.28% annualized return.

EWM

• 1D: 0.26%
• 1M: -0.28%
• 6M: 0.36%
• YTD: 2.60%
• 1Y: 18.43%
• 3Y*: 13.32%
• 5Y*: 5.92%
• 10Y*: 2.08%

CNYA

• 1D: -3.04%
• 1M: -3.13%
• 6M: -1.30%
• YTD: 3.41%
• 1Y: 24.47%
• 3Y*: 9.03%
• 5Y*: -1.52%
• 10Y*: 5.28%

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

EWM vs. CNYA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EWM iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF	2.60%	15.74%	19.46%	-3.61%	-6.00%	-7.40%	3.12%	-1.41%	-6.28%	24.25%
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF	3.41%	26.48%	10.78%	-13.76%	-26.51%	3.53%	41.54%	35.95%	-26.56%	30.99%

Correlation

The correlation between EWM and CNYA 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	0.30
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.32
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.37
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 15, 2016	0.37

EWM vs. CNYA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EWM	CNYA
Financial Services	50.5%	17.6%
Industrials	12.2%	15.4%
Utilities	10.9%	3.3%
Basic Materials	9.9%	11.2%
Communication Services	5.5%	1.3%
Consumer Defensive	4.7%	6.8%
Healthcare	3.4%	3.9%
Energy	2.9%	3.1%
Consumer Cyclical	1.1%	5.2%
Real Estate	-	0.6%
Technology	-	31.7%

Return for Risk

EWM vs. CNYA — Risk / Return Rank

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

EWM

EWM Risk / Return Rank: 44
EWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
EWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
EWM Omega Ratio Rank: 44
EWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
EWM Martin Ratio Rank: 40

CNYA

CNYA Risk / Return Rank: 54
CNYA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
CNYA Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
CNYA Omega Ratio Rank: 45
CNYA Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
CNYA Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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. CNYA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (EWM) and iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA). 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.

	EWM	CNYA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.31	1.27	+0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.88	1.80	+0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.23	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.74	3.16	-1.42
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.96	8.38	-3.42

EWM vs. CNYA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EWM Sharpe Ratio is 1.31, which is comparable to the CNYA Sharpe Ratio of 1.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EWM and CNYA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

EWM vs. CNYA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EWM drawdown since its inception was -89.19%, which is greater than CNYA's maximum drawdown of -49.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EWM and CNYA.

Drawdown Indicators

	EWM	CNYA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-89.19%	-49.49%	-39.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.61%	-7.77%	-2.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.31%	-33.35%	+12.04%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.76%	-44.65%	+21.89%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-43.81%	-49.49%	+5.68%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.33%	-18.08%	+8.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.75%	-20.62%	-11.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.72%	2.93%	+0.79%

Volatility

EWM vs. CNYA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (EWM) is 4.12%, while iShares MSCI China A ETF (CNYA) has a volatility of 8.65%. This indicates that EWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNYA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EWM	CNYA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.12%	8.65%	-4.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.22%	14.98%	-3.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.14%	19.41%	-5.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.74%	24.02%	-10.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.15%	23.59%	-7.44%

EWM vs. CNYA - Expense Ratio Comparison

EWM has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than CNYA's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

EWM vs. CNYA - Dividend Comparison

EWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.63%, more than CNYA's 1.82% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CNYA iShares MSCI China A ETF	1.82%	1.92%	2.51%	4.23%	2.69%	1.11%	1.06%	1.21%	3.92%	0.97%	1.38%	0.00%
EWM iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF	3.63%	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 CNYA in my portfolio?

EWM and CNYA 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 CNYA?

CNYA has higher volatility (8.65%) compared to EWM (4.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EWM dropped -89.19% vs CNYA's -49.49%.

Which ETF is better, EWM or CNYA?

On 10-year performance, CNYA leads with 5.28% vs 2.08% for EWM. On fees, EWM is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, EWM has been the lower-risk option at 4.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EWM or CNYA?

Over the 10-year period, CNYA has performed better with a 5.28% return vs 2.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EWM or CNYA?

EWM is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CNYA.

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

EWM has the higher dividend yield at 3.63%, compared with 1.82% for CNYA.

What is the main difference between EWM and CNYA?

EWM is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while CNYA is China Equities. EWM tracks MSCI Malaysia Index, while CNYA tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for EWM and 0.60% for CNYA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.31 vs 1.27), 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.